Appellate Court Modified Judgment Based On Small Costs Reduction By Lower Court In Order To Put The Case To Bed. Plaintiff losing contractual breach claims after a demurrer was sustained without leave to amend was later hit with an adverse $19,745 fees award based on a contractual fees clause (full fee request) and routine […]
Lower Court Erroneously Allowed Plaintiff To Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice. In Cole v. Hammond, Case No. B292331 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 24, 2019) (partially published), a trial court denied a defense motion to dismiss the case with prejudice because it had not been tried within five years and granted plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily
One Litigant Cannot Partially Prevail At Trial, And Another On Appeal, For Purposes Of Ultimate Prevailing Party Determination Under Section 1717. The Sixth District in Gambord v. Galli Produce Co., Case No. H043872 (6th Dist. June 28, 2019) (unpublished) faced an interesting issue based on a contractual fees clause under Civil Code section 1717:
$108,935.37 Net Recovery Went POOF!; However, Result May Be Academic Because Fee Motion Can Be Renewed Following Entry Of A Final Judgment. Prematurity of a “prevailing party” determination for fees and/or costs is a good ground to deny a litigant’s motion for the same, but it may just postpone some award in that litigant’s
$182,000 Fee Award To Defendant Affirmed On Appeal. In Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC v. High Seas Yacht Charters, LLC, Case Nos. G054706/G054877 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 24, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff landlord and defendant tenant got involved in a major tussle over office space and bloat slips leased to tenant defendant. Landlord
Majority And Dissenting Justice Disagreed On The Meaning Of A $500 Fee Cap Provision When Another Provision Discussed Additional Fees Being Within Play. We know from 511 S. Park View, Inc. v. Tsantis, 240 Cal.App.4th 44, 48 (2015) [discussed in our October 10, 2015 post] that courts will honor a contractual “cap” of fees
Equitable Claims Can Be “On The Contract,” Parties Losing On Their Complaint And Cross-Complaint Meant That Neither Side Prevailed; One Litigant Beat 998 Offer Based On Non-Monetary Value And The Fact That The Composite Joint Nature Of Offer Had To Be Considered, But Matter Had To Be Remanded For Prevailing Party Determination Based On An
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
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
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),
