Cases: Prevailing Party

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             In Shadab v. Goldberg, Case No. B277925 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 22, 2018) (unpublished), one side won a partition by sale of undeveloped land, with the trial court eventually awarding attorney’s fees of $99,761.46 after finding the fee claimant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,

Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Third District, In Writ Proceeding, Determines California Public Records Act Plaintiffs Prevailed, Reversing Determination Otherwise By Lower Court

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Petitioners Did Prevail Because Their Actions Motivated A Water District To Disclose Previously Withheld Records.             Writ relief does not happen often, but plaintiffs seeing that the lower court was against them sought it and were awarded by the Third District in Harrell & Gifford v. Superior Court (Hornbrook Community Services Dist.), Case Nos. C085484/C085606

Allocation, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: $371,135 Fee Award To Prevailing Tenant Affirmed Where Breach Of Contract Jury Verdict Was Only $84,595

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Tenant Also Entitled To Costs And Appellate Fees For Winning On Appeal.             Strength Farm, LLC v. The Heron Family Trust, Case No. B285264 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 25, 2018) (unpublished) illustrates that contractual fee recoveries do not have to proportionate to the compensatory breach of contract award (may even be more if tort

Prevailing Party: Defendants Fighting Back Plaintiff’s Service Lien Claim, But Only Garnering $5,787.81 Out Of Sought-After Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars In A Cross-Complaint, Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Request

Cases: Prevailing Party

Trial and Appellate Courts Found Neither Side Was A Prevailing Party, With Defense Request For $147,932.50 In Fees Denied.             Whenever a trial judge decides, in a post-trial fee hearing, that the result was a “tie” (or close thereto) as far as whether a fee claimant was a prevailing party in a lawsuit with mixed

Estoppel, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court’s Conclusion That It Lacked Jurisdiction To Entertain Motion To Enforce Settlement Means That Neither Side Could Be Prevailing Party

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Motion Was Not On The Contract, Opposing Side Was Not Estopped From Denying Fee Exposure, And Prevailing Party Determination Was Premature In Nature.             The Fourth District, Division 1, in Howeth v. Coffelt, Case No. D072543 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2018) (unpublished) (Howeth II), had to deal with one side’s appeal of an

Prevailing Party: Defendant Buyer Beating Lack Plaintiff Seller’s Unenforceability Argument Under Seller’s Complaint And Obtaining Specific Performance Relief On Buyer’s Cross-Complaint Was Entitled To Contractual Fees As Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party

Almost $90,000 In Fees Was Final “Reward” For Prevailing Buyer.             In Elie v. Kallie, Case No. B272360 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 12, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff seller lost in an effort to invalidate a sale agreement as unenforceable and also lost on defendant buyer’s cross-complaint seeking specific performance. In the end, defendant buyer obtained

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Judge’s Failure To Determine If Defendant Was Prevailing Party Under Civil Code Section 1717 Was Reversed And Remanded For A Determination

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Finding That Neither Side Prevailed For Routine Costs Did Not Decide Section 1717 Prevailing Party Issue.             In AAWestwood, LLC v. Liberal Arts 677 Benevolent Foundation, Case No. B275717 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 23, 2018) (unpublished), defendant won non-monetary relief under its cross-complaint while plaintiff lost some claims but won a net $3,809.52 in

Scroll to Top