Cases: Nonsignatories

Appealability, Landlord/Tenant, Non-Signatories, Reasonableness Of Fees:  Prevailing Defendant Tenants, Including Two Non-Signatory Occupants, Properly Were Awarded Contractual Attorney’s Fees Under Lease Provisions When Defendants Defensed Plaintiff Landlord’s Unlawful Detainer Action Based On An Invalid Three Day-Notice

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Fee Award Was $50,000, A Contractually Capped Amount, Even Though Defendants’ Counsel Expended $73,865 In Fees. In SM 10000 Property, LLC v. Chakchay, Case No. B350752 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 9, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff landlord filed an unlawful detainer action against defendant signatory tenant and two other non-signatory tenants named as occupants.  The lower court […]

Landlord/Tenant, Nonsignatories, Section 1717: Out Of Two Defendants Claiming To Be Prevailing Parties Under A Contractual Lease Clause, Neither Was Entitled To Fees

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

One Defendant Was Found To Forfeit All Rights Under The Lease On Summary Adjudication, And The Other Was Not A Lease Signatory.  In Morales v. Wang, Case No. B346779 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 12, 2026) (unpublished), after plaintiffs accepted a defense CCP § 998 offer which was silent on attorney’s fees, plaintiffs moved for

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories: $1,062,813.20 Fee Award In Favor Of Corporate Executives And Directors Is Affirmed On Appeal In Contentious Battle Involving Contracts Between Plaintiff And Banc Of California Executives/Directors

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Nonsignatories

Fee Clause Broadly Encompassed Any Dispute Resulting In Litigation, Executives/Directors Were Fee Clause Nonsignatories Entitled To Fees, And No Apportionment Was Needed Given Breadth Of Fees Clause. In Sugarman v. Benett, Case No. B338610 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 3, 2026) (unpublished), there was contentious, aggressive litigation involving plaintiff and his trust (plaintiff being a

Construction, Nonsignatories, Section 1717: $108,501.40 Fee Award Against Cross-Complainants Who Voluntarily Dismissed Their Cross-Complaint Is Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Construction, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

Santisas, Unilateral Fee-Shifting, And Section 1717 Principles Led To The Reversal. Cross-complainants voluntarily dismissed their cross-complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, disgorgement, Business and Professions Code section 7160 fraudulent inducement to enter a contract, and unjust enrichment as against two individual cross-defendants alleged to be

Fee Clause Interpretation, Nonsignatories, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Winning Tort Claims, But Losing One Contract Claim Against Some Defendants, Was Not Exposed To Attorney’s Fees By Two Set Of Defendants

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Prevailing Party

In Fact, Because He Prevailed, Plaintiff Was Entitled To Fees Against One Set Of Defendants, But Not A Nonsignatory Because He Only Brought Tort Claims. Appeals, although the odds are against them, can sometimes result in a reversal of fortune.   That did occur in Moses v. Rok Drinks, Ltd., Case No. B339392 (2d Dist., Div.

Nonsignatories, Section 1717: Lenders, As Third-Party Beneficiaries, Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees Under Broad Fee Clause Encompassing Tort Claims

Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

$150,000 Was The Fee Award Affirmed In Lenders’ Favor As Prevailing Cross-Defendants.             Hom v. Petrou, Case No. A161770 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 3, 2021) (published) involved a $150,000 contractual attorney’s fees award in favor of lenders obtaining a dismissal of a cross-complaint alleging primarily tort claims.  The 1/4 DCA affirmed, holding that there

Nonsignatories: Non-prevailing Individual Plaintiff Was Not Subject To Attorney’s Fees Exposure Because Nothing Indicated He Was A Contractual Third-Party Beneficiary

Cases: Nonsignatories

$430,000 In Fees Awarded Against Signatory LLC, But Not Against Losing Individual Plaintiff.             For a non-prevailing nonsignatory party to be exposed to fees, there must be some substantial link to the underlying contract involving signatory parties—such as the nonsignatory being a third-party beneficiary of a contract.  (Real Property Services Corp. v. City of Pasadena,

Arbitration, Nonsignatories, Quantum Meruit, Retainer Agreements: Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award Of $1,273,765.91 In Fees Owed To Two Law Firms Plus Another $508,678.82 For Fees And Costs Incurred In The Arbitration Affirmed

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Quantum Meruit, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Arbitration Was Properly Ordered Because The Claims Between Client And The Two Law Firms Arose Out Of The Underlying Retainer And Arbitration Agreements Client Signed With The First Law Firm.             Client retained a law firm to represent her in an ongoing dissolution action – signing a Retainer Agreement and a binding Arbitration Agreement.  During

Section 1717:  Nonsignatory Defendants Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

$61,565 Fee Award Sustained On Appeal             Nonsignatories defendants were awarded attorney’s fees of $61,565, drawing an appeal from the plaintiff in Westco Petroleum Distributors, Inc. v. Huntington Beach Industrial, Case No. B269393 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 10, 2017) (unpublished).  After surveying section 1717 jurisprudence which does allow fee recovery to nonsignatories like the

Nonsignatories: Prevailing Plaintiff Establishing Defendants Are Not Parties To License Agreement With Fee Provision Is Not Entitled To Fees Under Section 1717

Cases: Nonsignatories

When It Comes To Collecting Fees Under Civil Code Section 1717, A Prevailing Plaintiff Who Sues On A Contract Is Not The Same As A Prevailing Plaintiff Who Shows A Contract Does Not Exist.      Glovia International, Inc. v. Actuant Corporation, et al., B267175 (2/5 12/22/16) (Kumar, Turner, Kriegler) (unpublished) reinforces a theme oft

Scroll to Top