Cases: Prevailing Party

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: Defendant Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Where Plaintiff Really Obtained All Of Its Relief As The Prevailing Party Under Broad Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

Defendant Was Denied Fees, But It Did Not Independently Appeal—Maybe Should Have!             In MBK Properties LLC v. San Diego Beer Co., Inc., Case No. G055856 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 28, 2019) (unpublished), seller/plaintiff sold a commercial parcel to buyer/defendant under a written purchase and sale agreement (PSA) which had a contractual fees clause […]

Indemnity, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court Erred In Denying Contractual Fees To Owner And General Contractor’s Surety Such That A Remand Was Required—There Was A Fees Clause, Not Just An Indemnity Provision

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

However, Appellate Court Acknowledged That Results Were Decidedly Mixed, But Any Prevailing Party Determination Was To Be Made By Lower Court             Driving multiple trips to the appellate court were the parties’ claims for attorney’s fees, something we have seen often and one of the things which inspired this blog.             In John Russo Industrial

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: In UCC Case, Plaintiff Only Winning Installation Cost Recovery Rather Than Defective System Recovery Against Contractual Recovery Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Defendant Gravitated More On The “Winning Side,” Although Mixed Bag For Everyone.            This next case takes us back to law school for co-contributor Mike. He had a great Uniform Commercial Code professor in law school (E. Hunter Taylor, who is a professor emeritus at Rutgers-Camden Law School but is still practicing law in New Jersey),

Construction, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: 4/1 DCA Affirms That Subcontractor Was Not Prevailing Party Because Its Post-Litigation Deposit Near The End Of The Litigation Was Not A Proper Tender Under Civil Code Section 1717(b)(2)

Cases: Construction, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Very Elaborate Discussion Of “Tender” Under Section 1717(b)(2), Which Appellant Did Not Meet.             D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co., Inc. v. Milgard Mfg. Co., Inc., Case No. D074889 (4th Dist., Div. 1 March 29, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting case which interpreted the nature of Civil Code section 1717(b)(2). That provision says that where

Prevailing Party: Where Parties Admitted That Two Contracts Had Fees Clauses, Trial Court’s Denial Of Fees Entirely On One Contract Was Error Even Though The Fees Provision Was Missing From A Document Attached To A First Amended Complaint

Cases: Prevailing Party

Lower Court Should Have Credited Parties’ Admissions, With No Invited Error Based On Record Before The Lower Court.             If you, as a litigant, make an admission as to fee entitlement, but then try to change course based on a trial court’s different path, you may be bound by the admission in an appeal and

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party, SLAPP, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: No Abuse of Discretion In Awarding Prevailing Plaintiff $114,990.75 In Lawsuit Against Homeowners Association

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Condominium Owner Plaintiff Wisely Sought Fees Only For The Claims On Which She Prevailed Against Association             The Broadway Hollywood is a 10-story historical building on the corner of Hollywood and Vine. It was constructed in 1927 and originally used as a store. However, the building was abandoned in 1987 and remained vacant for

Assignment, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness of Fees: No Abuse Of Discretion In Awarding Prevailing Defendant $92,155 After Reasonableness Reduction.

Cases: Assignment, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

It Was Not Necessary For Court To Apportion Fees Between Contract-Based Causes Of Action, Claims Dismissed Before Trial, Defense of Defendant Corporation, and Defense of Corporation’s CEO Because Plaintiff’s Causes Of Action All Stemmed From A Common Factual Core, And All Claims Against CEO Were Also Alleged Against Entity.         In Grant v. AssistMed, Inc.,

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Plaintiff Prevails On Breach Of Contract Claims, But Is Denied Entire Attorney’s Fees Request Of $1.38 Million Due To Lack Of Attorney’s Fees Provision In Contract Under Which It Sued

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiff Was Unable To Demonstrate That Later Contract With Fees Provisions Was Applicable To Earlier Contract Under Which It Sued.         Applied General Agency, Inc. v. Chinese Community Health Plan, Case No. G055669 (4th Dist., Div. 3 February 27, 2019) (unpublished) involved a Plaintiff insurance agency and a Defendant/Cross-Complainant insurance provider who each sued each

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Lopsided Results Entitled Plaintiff Who Obtained Greater Relief To Fees As The Prevailing Party Under Civil Code Section 1717 Based On A Contractual Fees Clause In Written Construction Agreement

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Trial Court’s Discretionary Decision Of No Prevailing Party Reversed On Appeal         In Advent Companies, Inc. v. SJC II/Fourth and Haven, LLC, Case No. G055609 (4th Dist., Div. 3 February 27, 2019) (unpublished), a general contractor Plaintiff and property owner/developer Defendant/Cross-Complainant entered into a written construction agreement for Plaintiff to build a 298-unit apartment complex

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Reversal Of Fees Awarded To Borrowers Who Obtained Temporary Restraining Order Enjoining A Non-Judicial Foreclosure Sale But Submitted Procedurally Defective Fee Request

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party

Remand For Further Proceedings Gives Borrowers A Second Chance At Fees Allowed Under Civ. Code § 2924.12 (h) If They Choose To Bring Properly Noticed Motion         Section 2924.12 was enacted in 2012, and is commonly known as the Homeowner Bill of Rights. It was intended to address California’s foreclosure crisis and prohibit against “dual

Scroll to Top