Cases: Prevailing Party

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. […]

Employment, Prevailing Party:  Employee Winning $11,594.80 In Labor Code Violations Had $163,440 Fee Award Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

Reason Was That The Lower Court Applied The CCP § 1032 Prevailing Party Rigid Test, Rather Than A More Pragmatic Approach Which Governed Statutory Violations. In German v. La Floure, LLC, Case No. D086600 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 10, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff won wage/hour violations against defendants to the tune of $11,594.80 in damages,

Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 998, Section 1717:  Attorney’s Fees Properly Denied To Plaintiffs Where Neither Side Prevailed Even Though Both Sides Did Bring “On The Contract” Claims

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

However, Denial Of Costs Awards Were Reversed Based On Improper CCP § 998 Focus; Defendants Being The Costs Prevailing Parties When No One Won; And Errors In Adopting Across-The-Board Reductions For Jointly Represented Parties. Golunova v. Akhromtsev, Case Nos. A167542 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 20, 2025) (unpublished) involved dueling complaints by members

Costs, Mediation, Prevailing Party:  Sixth District Reverses And Remands Fee Denial For Further Proceedings Based On Erroneous “Refusal To Mediate” Decision Below

Cases: Costs, Cases: Mediation, Cases: Prevailing Party

It Found That A Putative Prevailing Party’s Reversal Of An Initial Decision to Refuse Mediation Might Entitle That Party To Fee Recovery If The Reversal Was Unequivocal In Nature; However, Costs Were Properly Denied Based On Not Filing A Timely Costs Memorandum. Evleshin v. Meyer, Case No. H051869 (6th Dist. Nov. 6, 2025) (published) involved

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party:  Defendants Voluntarily Dismissed From Plaintiff Neighbors’ Lawsuit Were Properly Denied Fees Under Civil Code Section 5975

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

Reason: Plaintiffs Obtained HOA Enforcement Against Defendants Such That Defendants Were Not Prevailing Parties. Even when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a lawsuit, the defendant is not necessarily the prevailing party under the Davis-Sterling Act’s fee shifting statute—because that determination depends on the reason for the dismissal and an assessment of who obtained their litigation objectives.  Such

Employment, Prevailing Party: FEHA Plaintiff Did Not Prevail For Fee Award Purposes Where Employer Won A Same Decision Defense And No Damages Were Awarded To Plaintiff . . . .

Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

Despite Plaintiff Proving Disability Discrimination Was A Substantial Motivating Factor In The Termination Decision. Because FEHA contains a pro-plaintiff fee shifting provision, plaintiff claimed she was the prevailing party, in Jong v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Case No. B328357 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 9, 2025) (unpublished), because a jury found that disability discrimination was a

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Neighbors Getting Mixed Result In A Height Restriction Dispute Correctly Were Not Awarded Attorney’s Fees Under Davis-Stirling Act

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

No Prevailing Party Determination Was No Abuse Of Discretion.                “Mixed results” is a real challenge for a litigant seeking fees under a contractual fees clause or a statutory fee-shifting basis, such as the Davis-Stirling Act.  The lower court in Drohan v. Newcombe, Case Nos. C097894 et al. (3d Dist. July 18, 2025) (unpublished) decided that

Allocation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: In A Dispute With Dueling Claims Involving A Purchase Of A Senior Housing Facility, Sellers Properly Were Awarded $722,530.01 In Attorney’s Fees For Breach Of An Escrow Holdback Agreement

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Sellers Wanted Over $2.5 Million—Did Not Happen, Based On Lower Court’s Apportionment Which Was Found Appropriate.                Where different contracts are involved and no success/limited success is involved, California law gives deference to a lower court to fashion a reasonable award and even apportion fees based on the facts.  That is what occurred in Life

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Defendants/Cross-Complainant Adjacent Property Owners Losing Common Area Disputes Were Properly Found Responsible For $927,249.19 In Contractual Attorney’s Fees After Losing Major Parts Of The Litigation

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing Party Determination Was Discretionary, With The Lower Court Not Abusing Its Discretion.                Under Civil Code section 1717, if no side gets an unqualified win, a lower court determines the prevailing party on the contract by comparing the relief awarded on claims with the parties’ claim demands and their litigation objectives as well as

Costs, Employment, POOF!, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Proving Whistleblower Case, But Obtaining No Relief As Employer Proved A “Same-Decision Defense,” Was Erroneously Awarded Attorney’s Fees Under One-Way Whistleblower Statute, Labor Code 1102.5

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

$400,000 Fee Award Reversed As A Matter Of Law, With County Entitled To Routine Costs As The Prevailing Party Below.                In a “mixed-motive” whistleblower case, plaintiff proved the elements of his whistleblower claim, but he obtained no relief because defendant employer proved the “same-decision defense.”  The lower court in Lampkin v. County of Los

Scroll to Top