Cases: Prevailing Party

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was the prevailing party, in Jong v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Case No. B328357 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 9, 2025) (unpublished), because a jury found that disability discrimination was a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 July 18, 2025) (unpublished) decided that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

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Homeowner’s Voluntary Dismissal Of HOA Without Prejudice Did Entitle HOA To Attorney’s Fees Under The Davis-Stirling Act Fee Shifting Provision

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

$148,142.26 Was The Fee/Costs Award Against Homeowner, Affirmed On Appeal.                We frequently have posted on homeowner-HOA disputes.  They are contentious.  However, whoever prevails—and that can be a discretionary call—or if no one prevails can be a game changer in these disputes, much to the chagrin of one side or both sides.                Jennings v.

Prevailing Party: In Contractual Fees Case, Attorneys’ Fees Request Of $253,440 Properly Denied To Plaintiff Winning A $256,851 Verdict

Cases: Prevailing Party

No Prevailing Party Discretionary Determination Affirmed On Appeal, With Concurring Justice Also Observing That The Lack Of A Reporter’s Transcript Of The Fee Hearing Was Fatal.                In Deep Green Nation Collision, Inc. v. Park, Case No. B339499 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 9, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff won a jury verdict of $256,851 on breach

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Where Homeowners Prevailed On Two Claims And HOA Prevailed On A Declaratory Relief Claim, Results Were Mixed ….

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

The Result Was That HOA Was Not Entitled To Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees.                “Prevailing party” determinations, frequently, depend on whether a trial judge believes a litigant truly met its litigation objectives.  Generally, if a result is a “mixed” good/bad result, the litigant does not obtain attorney’s fees under a fee-shifting statute.  That conclusion resonated

Landlord/Tenant, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Because Landlord’s Voluntary Dismissal Of An Unlawful Detainer Action Sounded In Contract, Its Dismissal Did Not Entitle Tenant To Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Appellate Court Did Discuss When The Action Is Contract Versus Tort, But The Case Did Not Have Tort Holdover Or Ouster Issues.                In an unlawful detainer case, the nature of the case may determine whether a landlord’s voluntarily dismissal allows the tenant an entitlement to attorney’s fees, which invokes the Santisas principle.  (See Our

Scroll to Top