Cases: Prevailing Party

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             In Sandford v. Sandford, Case No. G057066 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 3, 2020) (unpublished), a family squabble, defendant/cross-complainant got the better of plaintiff/cross-defendant over a loan dispute, defensing plaintiff’s complaint in entirety,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             In Walters v. Moore, Case No. G058689 (4th Dist., Div. 3 October 30, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff and defendant formed an LLC with an Operating Agreement that provided for the recovery of all reasonable fees, costs and expenses incurred by the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

Prevailing Party, SLAPP: Affirming Trial Court’s Granting Of Anti-SLAPP Motion With Modification To Separate Non-Protected Activities Within Cause Of Action Did Not Result In Reversal Of Fees/Costs Award

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: SLAPP

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             In BLT Communications, LLC v. LaMarche, Case No. B302527 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 30, 2020) (unpublished), former employer plaintiff sued two of its former employees asserting a number of allegations.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

Prevailing Party: Aljabban Decision Now Published

Cases: Prevailing Party

Case Dealt With Reversal Of Fee Award On Security Deposit Withholding, Requiring A Restudy Of An Older Fee Award.             On August 21, 2020, we posted on the decision of Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc., Case No. D076214 (4th Dist., Div. 2), which was unpublished at the time.  That case reversed a $121,043

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Attorney Fees Of $144,200 Plus Costs Of $5,969.15 Awarded Under Section 1794 To Song-Beverly Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal Despite Lack of Prevailing Party Ruling

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party

The Trial Court Made An Implied Finding, Which Was Supported By Substantial Evidence, That Plaintiff Obtained His Litigation Objective And Was The Prevailing Party.             Civ. Code § 1794(d) allows a prevailing buyer to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of an action under Civ. Code § 1790

Celebrities, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: President Donald J. Trump Ordered To Pay $44,100 In Attorney’s Fees In Story Daniels Dismissed Case After It Goes Back to LASC

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

However, $10,030.65 Costs Request Denied.             By now, a lot of us are familiar with the Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) case against President Daniel J. Trump, which had been litigated both in federal courts and the Los Angeles County Superior Court (LASC).  In fact, Ms. Clifford got tagged with some SLAPP fees at the

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

Scroll to Top