Cases: Prevailing Party

Prevailing Party: In Contractual Fees Case, Attorneys’ Fees Request Of $253,440 Properly Denied To Plaintiff Winning A $256,851 Verdict

Cases: Prevailing Party

No Prevailing Party Discretionary Determination Affirmed On Appeal, With Concurring Justice Also Observing That The Lack Of A Reporter’s Transcript Of The Fee Hearing Was Fatal.                In Deep Green Nation Collision, Inc. v. Park, Case No. B339499 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 9, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff won a jury verdict of $256,851 on breach […]

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Where Homeowners Prevailed On Two Claims And HOA Prevailed On A Declaratory Relief Claim, Results Were Mixed ….

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

The Result Was That HOA Was Not Entitled To Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees.                “Prevailing party” determinations, frequently, depend on whether a trial judge believes a litigant truly met its litigation objectives.  Generally, if a result is a “mixed” good/bad result, the litigant does not obtain attorney’s fees under a fee-shifting statute.  That conclusion resonated

Landlord/Tenant, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Because Landlord’s Voluntary Dismissal Of An Unlawful Detainer Action Sounded In Contract, Its Dismissal Did Not Entitle Tenant To Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Appellate Court Did Discuss When The Action Is Contract Versus Tort, But The Case Did Not Have Tort Holdover Or Ouster Issues.                In an unlawful detainer case, the nature of the case may determine whether a landlord’s voluntarily dismissal allows the tenant an entitlement to attorney’s fees, which invokes the Santisas principle.  (See Our

Prevailing Party: Ninth Circuit Denies Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiff Whose Case Was Mooted By Hawaii Legislative Amendments

Cases: Prevailing Party

However, Some Concurring Justices Were Concerned That Plaintiffs Will Never Get Fees Under Cases Where They Had Earlier Prevailed, Only To Have Technicalities Render The Matter Moot.                On March 17, 2025, we posted on Lackey v. Stinnie, 145 S.Ct. 659 (2025), where SCOTUS held that a plaintiff winning a preliminary injunction, with plaintiff’s case

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: HOA Owner Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Because HOA Dismissed Complaint Against Him After Defeating Cross-Claims, So No One Technically Prevailed

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

HOA Did Get Prior SLAPP Fees For SLAPPing HOA Owner’s Cross-Complaint.                Loma Linda Homeowners Assn. v. Aquino, Case No. D085390 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2025) (unpublished) is a study on how lower and appellate courts “do justice,” within the confines of legal principles, in HOA owner and HOA disputes.  They are ugly,

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Alter Ego Defendants Obtaining Dismissal Of Declaratory Relief Action Were Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under A Fees Clause Between Plaintiff And The Signatory Defendant

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

$58,223 Was The Fee Award, With A Credit For Smaller CCP § 128.7 Sanctions.                In ATM Professional, Inc. v. Repiping.com, Inc., Case No. B331046 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 26, 2025) (unpublished), alter ego defendants obtained a dismissal (based on failure to name an indispensable party, the contract signatory) in a declaratory relief complaint

Civil Rights, Prevailing Party: SCOTUS Decides That A Preliminary Injunction Mooted By Subsequent Events Does Not Make One A Prevailing Party Under The Civil Rights Fee Shifting Statute

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Prevailing Party

However, A Footnote In the Opinion Shows That This Is A Nuanced Issue Depending On Objectives Of Plaintiff Or Defendant.                We now report on a recent SCOTUS decision under the civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), which provides when a “prevailing party” can recover fees.  This case is interesting and may have repercussions

Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees: $493,577.10 Attorney’s Fees Award In FEHA Case Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

2/8 DCA Considers Deferential Standards For Review Of Fee Awards, With The Record Establishing Plaintiff Prevailed And The Fee Amount Was Not Erroneous.                2025 greets us with a published fee decision written by Justice Wiley of the 2/8 DCA, in his recognizable writing style, with the opinion being penned in Pollock v. Kelso, Case

Costs, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees: Most Of Costs Award Is Affirmed, As Well As Substantial $1,751,500 Fee Award Is Sustained On Appeal

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

Certain Costs Not Awardable, With Lower Court’s Fee Reduction For Incivility And Abusive Litigation Found To Be No Abuse Of Discretion.                In Madison v. Theodore, Case Nos. B310551 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 8, 2025) (unpublished), appellant lost a fiduciary duty-based case against plaintiffs to the tune of $3.9 million based on

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Tenant Prevailed Under Civil Code Section 1717 Based On A Contractual Fees Clause By Defeating Landlord’s Unlawful Detainer Action

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Tenant Proved There Was A Defective 3 Day Notice For Nonpayment, Because Tenant Did Not Contest It Was Claiming Occupancy Of Unleased Areas–$122,855 Was The Fee Award.                 Big Washington LLC v. Superdudes, LLC, Case No. F086483 (5th Dist. Dec. 20, 2024) (unpublished) shows how highly contested unlawful detainer actions can produce a

Scroll to Top