Answer – Not Tested In California, But We Provide You Some Clauses Defining The “Prevailing Party” And A Guess On The Result. Generally, the language of a contractual attorney’s fees provision can be critical as far as the ambit of fee entitlement. California Civil Code section 1717 allows the “prevailing party” in contractual actions […]
DisputeSuite Recent California Supreme Court Decision Supported The Result. In Ahern v. Asset Management Consultants, Inc., Case No. B271851 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 22, 2017) (unpublished), parties successfully challenging an adverse result on the basis it was not arbitrable later sought $465,000 in attorney’s fees even though the merits dispute was
Merits Win Not Required, Agreeing With Two Other Decisions As Far As Breadth Of False Claims Act Prevailing Party Definitional Scope. Dr. Ralph's Pills. Library of Congress. In Amphastar Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Aventis Pharma SA, Nos. 14-56382/15-56204 (9th Cir. May 11, 2017) (published), the defense won a
Dispute Arose Over Filming Rights For Jimi Hendrix’s 1969 Performance At London’s Royal Albert Hall. Photograph of Jimi Hendrix taken in Sweden. May 24, 1967. Wikipedia. Although unpublished, Experience Hendrix, LLC v. The Last Experience, Case No. B268414 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 8, 2017) (unpublished) takes us down
Apportionment Would Have To Be Made, Because Litigant Shared Counsel With Remaining Party In Litigation. Hyatt v. Aurora Western Pacific Advisors, Inc., Case No. G052981 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 20, 2017) (unpublished) illustrates that difficulties in apportioning fees does not allow a trial judge to deny a fee request by
Winner Did Prevail. So, what is the price of modern litigation even in a case involving one party against two other affiliated parties where cross-claims are involved? Answer: pricey. That is illustrated by the result in Mendez v. Piper, Case No. H041122 (6th Dist. Apr. 12, 2017) (unpublished), where a party won a
Refiling The Case In A Different Jurisdiction Was The Key Distinction. In DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com, Case No. S226652 (Cal. Supreme Court Apr. 6, 2017) (published), our state supreme court faced the issue of whether fee recovery under Civil Code section 1717 was properly denied against a litigant obtaining a dismissal of an
Alter Ego Allegations Likely Drove The Result Here. In Dominski v. Lazar, Case No. B268187 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 29, 2017) (unpublished), which involved a custom home construction dispute, homeowners did prevail against the construction company but did not prevail against the construction company principal despite alter ego allegations which did not
Panoply Of Issues Faced In This Decision. In Lemaire v. Covenant Care California, LLC, Case No. B266493 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 27, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a complaint based on wrongful death, elder abuse, and “patients’ rights” violations under Health and Safety Code section 1430(b) for treatment of her mother in a
Lower Court Erred In Denying Fees/Costs Because PRA Requires Agency To Seek Clarification Of Unclear Request And No Bad Faith Required As PRA Predicate. In Camou v. Superior Court (City of Montclair), Case No. E066325 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 13, 2017) (unpublished), the Fourth District, Division 2 issued a Palma-based writ after
