Cases: Prevailing Party

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To CLRA Settling Plaintiff Reversed And Remanded To See If Plaintiff Achieved His Litigation Objectives In Settling An Alleged Mislabeling Tequila Ingredient Case

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party

A Final Determination On The Merits Was Not Required In CLRA Cases, Unlike Unruh Or Disabled Persons Act Matters. In Garcia v. SouthNorte Spirits LLC, Case No. B345897 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 21, 2026) (unpublished), a plaintiff bringing a Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) case for tequila ingredient mislabeling reached a settlement for $2,500 […]

Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: $379,280.25 Prevailing Party Award Under A Contractual Fees Clause Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

. . . However, A Costs Item For Models And Exhibit Photocopies Was Stricken On Appeal, Because Costs Relating To A Demurrer Hearing Are Not Recoverable Because Costs Statute Only Applies To Trier Of Fact Stages Of The Litigation. Marosi v. TriCo Bancoshares, Case No. H051989 et al. (6th Dist. July 20, 2026) (unpublished) is

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: District Prevailing In Percentage Lease Dispute Under Contractual Leases Was Properly Awarded $137,400 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Contractual Ambiguity Challenges Did Not Resonate, Because Not Raised Below. In Ventura Harbor Restaurant Associates, Inc. v. Ventura Port Dist., Case No. B344145 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 9, 2026) (certified for publication, after being filed on June 15, 2026 as an unpublished opinion), the appellate court affirmed a $137,400 contractual attorney’s fees award under

Allocation, Costs, Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party On Appeal:  HOA Was The Prevailing Party For Appellate Costs And Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

. . . But Fees Had To Be Allocated To Only Successful Claims Because Opponent Prevailed On Some Issues. The Colony at Cal. Oaks HOA v. Majestic Asset Mgt., LLC, Case No. D083140 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2026) (unpublished) was an HOA versus certain member dispute involving a golf course.  The case, on

Prevailing Party, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Sisters Escaping Liability To County/Receiver In State Housing Law Abatement Receivership Were Entitled To Fees Under Health & Safety Code Section 17980.7(c)(11)—They Were Prevailing Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Receivers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

More Generalized H&S Code Section 17984 Did Not Trump More Specific, Recently Enacted Statute, With Sisters Being The Parties Obtaining Their Specific Litigation Objectives Although The County Did Somewhat Prevail On More Tangential Issues. In County of Del Norte v. Britt, Case No. A173145 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 11, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion

Appealability, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Because Order Taking A Civil Harassment Petition Off Calendar Was Not An Appealable Order, Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Defense Had To Be Remanded To See If There Was A Prevailing Party

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Whether A Prevailing Party Even Exists Should Be Determined By The Lower Court, But The Fee Motion Was Timely. In Raheb v. Williamson, Case No. B343023 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 4, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner sought to obtain a temporary restraining order against defendant, a condominium community fellow resident.  This request was denied pending a

Lis Pendens, Prevailing Party, Probate: Respondents In Probate Dispute Venued In Marin County Won Attorney’s Fees In Successfully Expunging A Lis Pendens And Then Won More Substantial Fees As The Prevailing Parties After Petitioner Voluntarily Dismissed A 850 Petition

Cases: Lis Pendens, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Probate

Various Statutes Gave Rise To Fee Entitlement In The Probate Case. One of our readers, Ronald Foreman of San Francisco’s Foreman & Brasso, sent us some interesting fee opinions in the Marin County Superior Court case of Matter of the Gregory Joseph Schoepp Living Trust, Case No. PR000248 [12/6/24 lis pendens expungement fee order and

Prevailing Party: Where Plaintiff Through A Settlement Obtained A Rescission And Partial Restitution Of Prejudgment Interest, The Lower Court Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Under A Contractual Fees Clause Because A Mixed Result Occurred

Cases: Prevailing Party

$800,000 Fee Request Denied, With The Appellate Court Observing That The Result Could Have Gone The Other Way—But Discretion Is Involved When One Side Does Not Knock It Completely Out Of The Park. Hakim-Baba v. Desai, Case No. H050787 (6th Dist. Mar. 4, 2026) (unpublished) was a messy case where plaintiff primarily sought to rescind

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,

Scroll to Top