Cases: Prevailing Party

Fee Clause Interpretation/POOF!/Prevailing Party: Remand To Clarify Damages Awarded To Nonprevailing Plaintiff Real Estate Buyers Meant Substantial Fee Award To Prevailing Real Estate Seller Needed To Be Revisited On Remand

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Award of Over $477,000 in Fees/Costs Went POOF!      In Fong v. Sheridan, Case Nos. A144286/A14522 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 21, 2016) (unpublished), buyers of seaside property sued seller and a dual broker agent for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission after dual agent told buyers at a pre-sale stage […]

Homeowner Association/Prevailing Party: $101,803.15 To Prevailing HOA Affirmed On Appeal Where Lower Court Found HOA Could Fine For Short-Term Vacation Rental Activities But Awarded Fairly Small Fines

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Prevailing Party Under Davis-Stirling Act Is A Pragmatic Inquiry, With Fees Mandatory If Prevailing Status Is Properly Made.     Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Assn. v. Carson, Case No. H041030 (6th Dist. Apr. 19, 2016) (published) involves a $101,803.15 fees/costs award to a prevailing homeowner association against homeowners who were found to have violated short-term

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Defendant Prevailing On Tort Claims After Voluntary State Court Dismissal Entitled To $124,113 In Attorney’s Fees From Dismissing Plaintiffs

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Court Did Not Have To Resolve Split in Appellate Authority On Whether Financial Condition Is Considered For “Reasonable Fee” Purposes, Because No Financial Evidence Was Presented Before The Trial Court.     McNeil v. Symmetricom, Inc., Case No. H041067 (6th Dist. Apr. 12, 2016) (unpublished) involved a situation where plaintiffs dismissing a state court action

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Refusal To Award Attorney’s Fees Reversed Because 1717 Prevailing Party Determination Is Confined To Success On Contractual Causes Of Action

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Considering Mixed Results On Noncontractual Claims Was Error.     Justice Thompson, author of a 3-0 panel opinion in Sadr v. Sabet, Case No. G050493 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 5, 2016) (unpublished), provides us with an important nuance in cases where attorney’s fees awards are governed by Civil Code section 1717:  the prevailing party

Costs/Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissing Action After Receiving Payment Of Settlement Money Is Prevailing Party For Routine Costs Under CCP § 1032(a)(4)

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Defendant Did Not Prevail, For Routine Costs Purposes, By Obtaining Dismissal In This Situation.      The California Supreme Court, in DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, Case No. S219236 (Cal. Supreme Court Mar. 10, 2016) (published), decided that a voluntarily dismissing plaintiff who received settlement money from the defendant was a prevailing

Prevailing Party/Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: $396,031 Fee Award In Contentious Lease Dispute Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Party Awarded Fees Prevailed, Plus Block Billing No Obstacle Where Apportionment Not Required.     In Kern Water Bank Authority v. Grayson Service, Inc., Case Nos. F069806/F070549 (5th Dist. Feb. 3, 2016) (unpublished), litigant in a contentious lease dispute recovered $396,031 out of a requested $566,930.  The Court of Appeal affirmed.  It found that the

Allocation, Prevailing Party, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $390,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Defendants, Some Of Whom Were Alleged To Unsuccessfully Be Alter Egos, Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Fee Substantiation Issues Do Not Preclude An Award Of Fees To Prevailing Parties.     In Asphalt Professionals, Inc. v. Emaron Homes, LLC, Case No. B261674 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 20, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a case against certain defendants (some of whom were sued as alter egos) under a construction contract with a

Scroll to Top