Cases: Prevailing Party

Prevailing Party: Fourth District Affirms $5,000 Attorneys’ Fees Award To Prevailing Defendant Despite Request Erroneously Made Under The Wrong Statute

Cases: Prevailing Party

The Correct Statute Allowed For Fees And There Was No Prejudice To Plaintiff.         In Jabbar v. Loy, Case No. D075200 (4th Dist., Div. 1 November 8, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff sought an elder abuse restraining order against defendant pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.03.  The following month, the trial court granted plaintiff’s request […]

Construction, Prevailing Party: General Contractor Plaintiff Prevailing In Litigation Matter Against Subcontractor Through A Summary Judgment Motion Entitled To Contractual Fees

Cases: Construction, Cases: Prevailing Party

General Contractor Won A Positive Recovery By Keeping A $125,000 Properly Withheld Retention As Against The Sub.             Justice Wiley of the 2/8 DCA is showing a lot of writing panache in recent opinions, with the one we now post on involving a contractual attorney’s fees issue.             In Regency Midland Construction, Inc. v. Legendary

Judgment Enforcement, Prevailing Party: Trial Court Properly Denied Plaintiff’s Motion For Attorney Fees In An Action Brought Under The Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Prevailing Party

The Foreign Judgment Was Never Recognized In The California Court Given The Parties Entered Into A Settlement Agreement Prior To A Determination On The Request For Recognition.             The Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (Code Civ. Proc., § 1713 et seq.) (UFCMJRA) allows California courts to recognize and enforce judgments entered by courts

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Base Dispute Over $515 Ballooned Into Dispute Over $50,858.50 Fee Award In Favor Of Prevailing Parties, One A Nonsignatory To An Invoice

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Can’t Make It Up, With A Nonsignatory Being Entitled to Fees Had The Other Side Won Against The Nonsignatory.             You really cannot make up some of the decisions we post on.  Ehiemenonye v. Escobar, Case No. B285915 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 23, 2019) (unpublished) clearly falls in this category.             As unbelievable as

Prevailing Party: $159,356.73 Fee Award/$1,729.87 Costs Award Affirmed In Photocopy “Implied-In-Fact”/Services Agreement Litigation In Favor Of Prevailing Defendant/Cross-Complainant

Cases: Prevailing Party

Appellant’s “Implied-In-Fact” Contract Analysis Was Too Crimped In Nature.             We assume that the losing party in a dispute over provision of photocopying services was not happy when the trial judge awarded the prevailing defendant/cross-complainant $159,356.73 in attorney’s fees and $1,729.87 in costs.  That prompted an appeal, but the result did not change in Wholesome

Liens For Attorney Fees, Prevailing Party: Assignee, Principal Of Client, Had Standing To Bring Declaratory Relief Action As To Contractual Attorney’s Lien Claimed By Prior Counsel

Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Prevailing Party

Given Reversal Of Judgment On The Pleadings On This Issue, There Was No Prevailing Party Yet Such That Law Firm Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees.             In Roth v. Epps & Coulson, LLP, Case Nos. B285265 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 15, 2019) (unpublished), prior counsel of record ran into a rift with their

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717, Settlement: Reasonable Discretion Exercised In Awarding Defendant Only 20% Of Requested $177,712 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

The Legal Principles Of Civil Code Section 1717 and Santisas Governed.             Both parties appealed the fee results in Rusnak/South Bay v. Glukel Group, Case No. B286513 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2019) involving a dispute between landlord and tenant – with tenant plaintiff advancing contract and tort claims against landlord.         

Prevailing Party: Settling Plaintiff Abandoning Some Claims, Suffering A Summary Adjudication, And Only Obtaining A Much Scaled-Back Settlement Payment On One Claim, Was Properly Found To Not Be A Prevailing Party For Fee Recovery Purposes

Cases: Prevailing Party

This Was A Discretionary Call, Which Was Affirmed; Appellate Court Refused To Find That Appellate Fees Were Appropriate Either, With An Interesting Discussion On Why Documents Were Improperly Sealed By Trial Court With Respect to Fee Proceedings.             Although a settling plaintiff was found not be to a prevailing party for fee recovery purposes, the

Prevailing Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Prevailing On Note W/Contractual Fees Clause Not Subject To Fee Exposure On Subsequent Appeals And Lis Pendens Expungement Proceeding, As Other Side Never Sought Specialized Fee Relief From Appellate Court

Cases: Prevailing Party

Prevailing Party Did Accept Satisfaction Of Judgment While Appeals Were Pending, With Court Of Appeal Concluding There Can Only Be One Prevailing Party; CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Also Inapt.             De la Carriere v. Greene, Case No. B285793 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 28, 2019) (published) is a good addition

Prevailing Party, Sanctions, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Motel Owner And City Properly Found To Not Have Prevailed For Purposes Of Substandard Building Fee-Shifting Statute

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

Also, Motel Owner Properly Hit With Opposition Fees For Denied CCP § 128.5 Motion.             In City of South Lake Tahoe v. Cobrae, Case No. C083568 (3d Dist. Aug. 5, 2019) (unpublished), City of South Lake Tahoe filed a petition seeking appointment of a receiver against a motel owner based on allegations that he had

Scroll to Top