Cases: Prevailing Party

Appealability, Employment, Intervenors, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Bevy Of Appealability Issues And Prevailing Party Issues Were Resolved By 4/1 DCA Dispute Between Former Employer And Employee Over Return And Use Of Documents On A Jump Drive

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Employment, Cases: Intervenors, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Employee Did Prevail On Employer’s Contract Claims, But Lower Court’s Reduced Fee Award For Prevailing On Labor Code Claims Was No Abuse Of Discretion—Given Attorney Intervenors Did Timely Appeal And Contest Merits Based On Their Attorney’s Lien Interest In Fees/Costs Awards.             This next case, Premier Mechanical Group, Inc. v. Harvey (Edwards), Case No. D075663 […]

Prevailing Party: Litigant Successfully Opposing Attorney’s Fees Request Involving Pet Cemetery Dispute Properly Was Not Entitled To Fees As Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party

No Authority Provided To Show A Litigant Prevailed On Opposing A Fee Motion Where That Litigant Did Not Prevail On The Merits.             Allen v. MacIntosh, Case No. E073408 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 13, 2021) (unpublished) involved a trespass dispute on land which had a portion dedicated for use as a pet cemetery.  In

Prevailing Party, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: City Of Norco v. Mugar Is Now A Published Decision.

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

Trial Court’s Determination That Plaintiff City Was The Prevailing Party Was Proper Under Catalyst Theory, City’s Arrangement With Outside Counsel Did Not Violate Defendant’s Due Process Rights, And Fee Award Of $60,798.94 To City Was Not Meant To Penalize Defendant For Defending Property Rights.             We discussed City of Norco v. Mugar, Case No. E072858

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Settling For $150,000 In FEHA/Residential Inhabitability Case For Costs Of Defense To Try The Matter, Was Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party

Plaintiff’s Request For $819,171.75 In Fees Was Inflated, With $150,000 Settlement Amount Being Much Lower Than The Damages Being Sought, Forget Demands In Mediation.             With 2020 drawing to a close, we can say there have been a surge in decisions on who is a prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717 where the results

Prevailing Party: Determination That No Side Prevailed Under Contentious Parking Easement Dispute Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Prevailing Party

Where One Side Wanted Exclusive Parking Easement And Other Side Wanted Termination Of Easement/Tort Damages, Trial Court’s Decision To Share Parking Was A True “Lose-Lose” Case For Everyone.             One of our leading cases, Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (1995), is must reading and the blueprint for the decision to affirm a trial court’s

Landlord/Tenant, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Reversal Of $172,375 In Attorney Fees Awarded To Defendant Based On Trial Court’s Abuse Of Discretion In Finding Defendant Was The Prevailing Party

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

Pursuant To Section 1717, Defendant Was Not The Prevailing Party As It Lost The Sole Cause Of Action In The Case – With The Jury Awarding $45,050 In Damages To Plaintiff For Defendant’s Breach Of The Written Lease Contract.             Waterwood Enterprises, LLC v. City of Long Beach, Case No. B296830 (2d Dist., Div. 1

Prevailing Party, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $60,798.94 Awarded To Prevailing City In Abatement Nuisance Action Affirmed On Appeal

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

City’s Arrangement With Outside Counsel Did Not Violate Defendant Property Owner’s Due Process Rights, Fee Award Was Not Meant To Penalize Defendant For Defending Property Rights, And Trial Court Properly Determined City The Prevailing Party Under Catalyst Theory.             Plaintiff City and defendant property owner had a long history of conflict regarding substandard conditions on

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: 2/5 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Award Of $225,000 § 1717 Prevailing Party Attorney Fees Plus $55,000 In Appellate Attorney Fees To Defendant Succeeding On Equitable Causes Of Action

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Although Plaintiff Prevailed On The Unlawful Detainer Claim, Defendant Obtained Greater Relief, And The Parties’ Contract Fees Provision Encompassed Both Contract And Tort Causes Of Action.             We previously discussed a prior appeal from this next case, which stemmed from a landlord/tenant dispute over the use of six parking spaces, in our May 23,

Prevailing Party: Under Contractual Fees Clause, $145,116.38 In Attorney’s Fees and Costs Properly Awarded To Defendant/Defensive Cross-Complainant As Prevailing Party In Loan Dispute

Cases: Prevailing Party

Defendant Did Prevail—Defensed Complaint Entirely, Which Mooted Most Of His Cross-Complaint Claims Except For One Cross-Claim Resolved In Plaintiff’s Favor.             In Sandford v. Sandford, Case No. G057066 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 3, 2020) (unpublished), a family squabble, defendant/cross-complainant got the better of plaintiff/cross-defendant over a loan dispute, defensing plaintiff’s complaint in entirety, having

Prevailing Party, Reasonableness of Fees: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s $287,256 Prevailing Party Fees Award On Action On Oral Agreements

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

“Extraordinarily Broad Attorney Fees Agreement” Sealed The Deal.             In Walters v. Moore, Case No. G058689 (4th Dist., Div. 3 October 30, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff and defendant formed an LLC with an Operating Agreement that provided for the recovery of all reasonable fees, costs and expenses incurred by the prevailing party “[i]n the event

Scroll to Top