Cases: Prevailing Party

Costs, Employment, Prevailing Party: $3,881.39 In Routine Costs, Out Of A Requested $38,813.96, To A Prevailing Wage Claim Plaintiff Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

Reason Was That Plaintiff Only Had Limited Success, So No Abuse Of Discretion In The Reduction By The Lower Court.             So, a plaintiff prevails on a wage/hour claim for unpaid wages under Labor Code section 218.5, but only gets a minimal award which was limited success when other claims are considered?  Does that plaintiff […]

Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General: Private Attorney General Fee Denial Affirmed Based On Litigant’s Failure To File Appellate Opening Brief And Small Fees Award Against Governmental Entity Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Did Not Prevail Against Governmental Entity So That $7,500 Government Code Section 800 Award Went POOF! On Appeal.             Ya know, appellate proceedings can really change results at the trial court level at different junctures of a case.  1041 20th Street, LLC v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., Case No. B295812 (2d Dist., Div.

Arbitration, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court Properly Found That Respondent Did Not Prevail For Fee Recovery Even Though She Did Obtain A Ruling Denying A Petition To Confirm The Arbitration Award And Did Obtain A Vacatur Ruling

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

The Lower Court’s Discretionary Determination That No One Prevailed Was Affirmed On Appeal.             In Goraya v. Stephens, Case No. F078335 (5th Dist. Jan. 3, 2020) (unpublished), property seller and property buyer submitted to arbitration and settled, with the listing agent joined as a party in the arbitration at his own request, eventually obtaining an

Deed Of Trust, POOF!, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: $427,951.93 Fee Award Based On Deed Of Trust Fee Provision Went POOF! Because Nonjudicial Foreclosure Purchaser Relied On Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale Having No Fees Clause

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Purchaser’s Action Against Tax Authorities Did Not Really Focus On Deed Of Trust With Fees Clause.             CP III Rincon Towers, Inc. v. Assessment Appeals Bd. of the City and County of San Francisco (Rincon EF Realty LLC), Case No. A155714 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 17, 2019) (unpublished) shows that Civil Code section 1717”s

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Misinterpretation Of Civil Code § 8460 Cost Pro Per Plaintiff His Mechanics’ Lien Claim And An Award Of Attorney Fees To Prevailing Defendant

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Pro Per Plaintiff Timely Filed Action After Recording Mechanics’ Lien, But Sought To Recover Compensation Owed For His Work Rather Than The Sale Of The Property Subject To The Lien And Application Of The Sale Proceeds To Pay The Amount Secured By The Lien.             In Settimi v. Hart, Case No. F079181 (5th Dist.,

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Limited Attorney Fees Award Without Regard To Actual Time Expended By Plaintiffs’ Counsel In Successfully Initiating And Prosecuting Case Under The Song-Beverly Act

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party

Trial Court Erroneously Used Plaintiffs’ Separate Net Monetary Recovery As Basis For Determining Prevailing Party Rather Than Plaintiffs’ Success In Meeting Litigation Objectives.            Patel v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Case No. B293813 (2d Dist., Div. 4 December 17, 2019) (unpublished), includes a nice discussion on prevailing parties under the Song-Beverly Act.             Here,

Prevailing Party, Probate: Appellate Court’s Reversal Of A Probate Court Asset Characterization Required A Reexamination Of Whether Trustee’s Attorney’s Fees Were Proper Because She Was Really The Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Probate

A Re-Do Was Ordered To Be Done By The Trial Judge In The First Instance.             In Placencia v. Strazicich, Case No. G055631 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 26, 2019) (published), our local Santa Ana appellate court reversed a trial judge’s characterization of bank account funds which had led the lower court to award attorney’s

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Losing Plaintiffs’ Strained Interpretation of Prevailing Party Language In Fees Clause Did Not Disturb Trial Judge’s Award Of Fees And Costs To Prevailing Defendants

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

$40,202 Was The Fees/Costs Award In Easement Dispute, Reduced From The Requested $79,675 In Fees.             Defendants/cross-complainants in an easement dispute won on every issue except for cross-complainants” claim that plaintiffs owed them money for utilities, garnering $1,350 for damages for injury to their livestock.  Even though there was no unqualified winner, the trial court

Appealability, Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Second District Affirms $67,458.07 Attorneys’ Fees Awarded To Prevailing Defendant On Remand

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

Gravamen of Plaintiffs’ Action Was Based On Governing CC&Rs Which Made Defendant Prevailing Party For Attorneys’ Fees Purposes When She Defeated The Action Through Demurrers And Plaintiffs’ Voluntary Dismissal.             We first discussed our next case – Durack v. Wang, Case No. B293597 (2d Dist., Div. 7 November 18, 2019) (unpublished) – in a

Allocation, Prevailing Party, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Prevailing Plaintiff Under Civil Code § 3344 Properly Awarded $137,595.20 In Attorneys’ Fees And $9,523.55 In Costs While Prevailing Defendant Under § 3344 Properly Denied Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Plaintiff – Although Seeking Six-Figures In Damages – Had Achieved His Litigation Purposes Through Damages Verdict of $10,000, But Dismissed Defendant Failed To Meet His Burden As To The Reasonableness Of His Fees Request.             In Dice v. X17, Inc., Case No. B2282448 (2d Dist., Div. 3 September 27, 2019) (unpublished), a celebrity news

Scroll to Top