Cases: Prevailing Party

Prevailing Party: Where Alter Ego Allegations Only Directed At Tort Claims With Narrow Fees Clause, Individual Cross-Defendant Beating Alter Ego Claims On Tort Claims Not Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party

Narrow Fees Clause and Tort Claims Were The Determining Factors Here.             In Echeverria v. Cohen, Case No. B285085 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 26, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff dental corporation sued defendant landlord over a commercial lease termination, and defendant cross-claimed against the tenant and tenant’s principal under an alter ego theory. Landlord prevailed on […]

Deeds Of Trust, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Where Lender Did Get Ruling Saying Plaintiff Had To Repay Loan, That Was A Prevailing Party Determination

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

Section 1717 Governed In This One, Given Broad Fees Clause In Deed Of Trust.             In PNG Investments, Inc. v. RG Real Estate Investments, Case No. B280229 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 20, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff/cross-defendant won a real estate loan dispute against defendant/cross-complainant. Later, the trial judge awarded plaintiff/cross-defendant contractual attorney’s fees under a

Celebrities, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Model/Actor Winning $1.123 Million In Unauthorized Likeness Case Was Improperly Denied Prevailing Party Fees Under Civil Code Section 3344

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Prevailing Party

Despite Plaintiff Not Winning Multi-Millions More Being Claimed, Appellate Court Believed He Should Get Prevailing Party Fees.             Co-contributor Mike was a little surprised by this one, given how prevailing party determinations in mixed cases are usually governed by a deferential abuse of discretion standard. However, that often depends on the facts of the case,

Prevailing Party, Probate, Section 1717: 1/1 DCA Affirms “No Prevailing Party” Determination In Hotly Contested Probate Promissory Note Dispute Between Two Siblings

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717

Although Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction Over The Dispute In California, Fee Denials On Dueling Motions Was Justified Because Siblings Had To Await Determination In Texas Action.             In Savage v. Savage, Case No. A150984 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 15, 2018) (unpublished) [parenthetically, maybe a good case name for court disputes – no?], two siblings

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court Properly Denied Section 1717 Fees To Plaintiff Winning $338,750 And To Cross-Complainant Winning $32,960

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Neither Side Obtained Complete Success, With Both Suffering Significant Defeats In The Overall Litigation.             Both sides in 12400 Stowe Drive, LP v. Cycle Express, LLC, Case No. D069738 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2018) (unpublished) were unhappy that the trial judge found neither to be the “prevailing party” based on a lease fees

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statute: San Benito Water District Regulation Fee-Shifting Provision Supported $82,762 Fee Award After Water District Obtained An Injunction Against Water Customer Such That Delinquent Account Was Paid

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Myriad of Arguments, Including Prevailing Party Determination, Were Rejected On Appeal.             This one shows how a delinquent water bill for $25,000 can mushroom into additional fee exposure of $82,762 when there is a local fee-shifting ordinance under which a local water district prevails.             What occurred in San Benito County Water Dist. v. McAlpine,

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Plaintiff’s Nonsignatory Successor In Interest Liable For Atty’s Fees After Losing Primary Litigation Objectives In Judicial Foreclosure Action And In Cross-Complaint Asking For Declaration No Further Repayment Of Loan

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Although Parties Settled, The Settlement Agreement Preserved The Prevailing Party’s Ability To Recoup Fees.             Plaintiff’s successor under certain loan documents brought a judicial foreclosure action against defendant borrower, who brought a declaratory relief cross-complaint claiming repayments all had been timely made. During the course of the litigation, a bank produced information showing that the

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Where Car Manufacturer Unconditionally Agreed To Repurchase Option And Car Purchaser Gambled On Getting Civil Penalties/Other Relief Under Lemon Law Statute, Car Purchaser Did Not Prevail So As To Be Entitled To No Fe

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party

Car Purchasers “Gambling” On Other Remedies Other Than Repurchase Might Have Repercussions – No Fee Recovery!             This case counsels that car purchasers and their attorneys in lemon law cases (equally applicable to situations involving consumer items other than cars as well) need to carefully think about rejecting a repurchase capitulation by a car manufacturer

Partition, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: $99,761.46 Litigant Prevailing In Undeveloped Land Partition By Sale Dispute Was Entitled To Recovery

Cases: Partition, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Litigant Awarded Fees Did Prevail Under CCP §§ 874.010/874.040 And Civil Code Section 1717.             In Shadab v. Goldberg, Case No. B277925 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 22, 2018) (unpublished), one side won a partition by sale of undeveloped land, with the trial court eventually awarding attorney’s fees of $99,761.46 after finding the fee claimant

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Fee Award Against Plaintiff Dismissing Domestic Violence Restraining Action Against Defendant, Where Records Were Not Sealed, Was Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff Dismissed Her Action, After Initial Successes, Not On The Merits But For Fear Of Her Safety, Such That Fees Were Unwarranted Under The Peculiar Circumstances.             So, who says that appellate jurists are not sometimes convinced by unique circumstances to find that an attorney’s fees award against a litigant should be reversed? Not us,

Scroll to Top