Cases: Prevailing Party

Prevailing Party: In Licensee Dispute Over Removal Of Improvements On Property, Reversal Of Security Deposit Ruling In Licensor’s Favor Required A Restudy Of Fees/Costs Award

Cases: Prevailing Party

$121,043 Fee Award And $14,374.60 Costs Award Had To Be Examined Based On Partial Reversal.             In Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc., Case No. D076214 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 18, 2020) (unpublished), licensor and licensee in swap meet space got into a spat over licensee’s claim about removing certain improvements and withholding […]

Prevailing Party: Trial Court Properly Exercised Its Discretion In Finding Dismissed Civil Harassment Defendant Was Not Prevailing Party And Not Entitled To Attorney Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party

Trial Court Made Its Prevailing Party Determination Based On The Circumstances Surrounding The Case.             Plaintiff in Steele v. Holcomb, Case No. G057931 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 27, 2020) (unpublished), who served on the board of directors for a residential homeowners association, filed a petition for a civil harassment restraining order against a

Intervenors, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Intervenor Residential Group Were Not Successful For CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery Purposes Because They Lost Their Pragmatic Goal Of Stopping A Development Project

Cases: Intervenors, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

The Trial Judge’s Call On Which Side Achieved Its Litigation Objection Was Correct.             On June 24, 2020, we posted on Redondo Beach Waterfront, LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, Case Nos. B291111/BS168564 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2020), unpublished at the time.  We can now report that it was partially published on July

Intervenors, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Trial Court’s Prevailing/Successful Party Determination For Purposes Of Costs And Attorney Fees Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Intervenors, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Determination Based On Achieving Litigation Goal, Not On Prevailing On A Higher Percentage Of Issues.             Redondo Beach Waterfront v. City of Redondo Beach, Case No. B291111 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2020) (unpublished), involved renovation of an existing 150,000 square foot building and a new 400,000 square foot waterfront development in the

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: $290,000-Plus Fee Award To Cross-Complainant Engineering Firm Affirmed On Appeal Because Fees Clause Was Broad Enough To Encompass Quantum Meruit Claims

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

Adverse Party Should Have Paid Around $57,000 To Other Side, And, If So, It Would Have Been The Prevailing Party!             Tristar Realty Group, LLC v. Koury Engineering & Testing, Inc., Case No. B294535 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 14, 2020) (unpublished) is a result demonstrating how the prevailing party determination in a case, where

Costs, Prevailing Party: Where There Were Several Judgments, With Plaintiff Not Prevailing On A Misappropriation Claim In The Second Phase, Defendant Was Entitled To Routine Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

Case Involved Applying DeSaulles Under Unusual Circumstances.             Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp., Case No. H043530 (6th Dist. Apr. 23, 2020) (published) is must reading for practitioners in trade secret cases when it comes to royalty awards under California’s Uniform Trade Secret Act.  It also has an interesting published discussion on who is the

Allocation, Landlord/Tenant, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees: Prevailing Tenant Was Entitled To Prevailing Party Fees Under Oakland’s Tenant Protection Ordinance Fee-Shifting Provision As Against Defendant Landlord

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

However, Prevailing Party Properly Awarded Apportioned Fees Of $49,875 Rather Than Requested $318,214 In Fees Against Defendant Landlord; Prevailing Defendant Property Manager Improperly Granted Routine Costs Because Motion Did Not Mention That Defendant And Nothing Showed The Costs Were Incurred.             In Goins v. Williams, Case Nos. A152828/A153632 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 14, 2020)

Celebrities, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Nevada Supreme Court Adopts “Catalyst Theory” For Purposes Of Awarding Attorney’s Fees And Costs Under The Nevada Public Records Act

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

Public Records Request Related To Las Vegas Murder Of American Rap Artist Tupac Shakur; California, Too, Has Adopted This Theory Under The California Public Records Act.             In Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept. v. The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc., No. 77617, 136 Nev. Advance Opinion 15 (Nev. Sup. Ct. Apr. 2, 2020), the Nevada

Allocation, Prevailing Party: Fee Award For All Incurred Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff Who Amended Complaint To Add Cause Of Action Providing Statutory Basis For Fee Recovery Just Before Trial Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party

All Causes Of Action Related To The Same Common Issue And Were So Intertwined That Apportionment Was Impracticable.             For an interesting discussion of The Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act of 1990 (Civ. Code section 1738.11 et seq.), Newman v. Knit Creations, Inc., Case No. B292659 (2d Dist., Div. 1 March 30,

Partition, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Denial Of Section 1717 Attorneys’ Fees To Partially Successful Defendant In Partition Action Affirmed

Cases: Partition, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Defendant Moved Under Civil Code Section 1717 Claiming Entitlement To Fees Pursuant To A Settlement Agreement She Unsuccessfully Sought To Enforce.             In Carmody v. Mayne, Case No. D076197 (4th Dist., Div. 1 March 30, 2020) (unpublished) Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral agreement to jointly purchase a single family home as an

Scroll to Top