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 Allen v. MacIntosh, Case No. E073408 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 13, 2021) (unpublished) involved a trespass dispute on land which had a portion dedicated for use as a pet cemetery.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 […]
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
“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
SLAPPing Defendants Were Still Prevailing Parties On The Protected Activity Allegations And, Therefore, Still Entitled To Attorney Fees And Costs. In BLT Communications, LLC v. LaMarche, Case No. B302527 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 30, 2020) (unpublished), former employer plaintiff sued two of its former employees asserting a number of allegations. Plaintiff’s 4th
