Cases: Prevailing Party

Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Plaintiff Tenants Obtaining CAM Credits And Monetary Settlement Were Prevailing Parties

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  They Did Get $76,000 In Fees And $16,961 In Costs, But Not Anything More—Plaintiffs’ Behavior In Settlement Negotiations Found To Be Irrelevant For Fixing 1717 Fees.      Some of the gnarly cases involve those where there is no “unqualified winner” under Civil Code section 1717 as far as fees (although a winner for routine […]

Prevailing Party: Parties In Easement/Damages Dispute Had To Bear Own Fees—No One Prevailed

Cases: Prevailing Party

  “Wash” Sentiment Of Lower Court Endorsed By Appellate Court On Review.      It’s a wash. Louise Rosskam, photographer.  July 1940.  Library of Congress.      In Yee v. Richance HB, LLC, Case No. G049598 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff/cross-defendant and defendant/cross-complainant got into a real estate dispute over easement rights. The

Costs, Deeds Of Trust, Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Deed Of Trust Trustee Did Prevail Under Civil Code Section 1717 Where It Defensed Tort Claims And It Took Neutral Position On Contractual Claim Under Broadly Worded Fees Cla

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  POOF!:  Award of Fees/Costs To Plaintiff Reversed, With Remand To Award Fees/Costs To Prevailing Trustee.      Torigian v. WT Capital Lender Services, Case No. F068393 (5th Dist. June 24, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting unpublished decision, authored by Acting Presiding Justice Cornell, where a neutral trustee under a deed of trust was found to

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Neighbor Successfully Suing For Coronado Cays CC&R Violations In Replacement Dock Construction Garners $104,718.80 In Attorney’s Fees/Costs

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Plaintiff Prevailed On Practical Level, Although Trial Judge Found It “Was Close.”     This next one recalls to mind the quote “close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.”          Although finding the prevailing party issue to be closed, the prevailing party prevailed enough to garner $104,718.80 in attorney’s fees and additional costs in

Multiplier, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Settlement, Special Fee Shifting Statute, Substantiation: Three Unpublished “Power Ball” Decisions Synopsized

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Settlement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Dept. of Parks and Recreation v. Schoendorf, Case No. H039321 (6th Dist. May 26, 2015) (unpublished).    In this one, an appellate court denied $300,000 in attorney’s fees against the State under a settlement agreement where “reasonable diligence” governed the fee entitlement.  Given that the prevailing party determination was discretionary under this clause and

Costs, Employment, Prevailing Party: LLC Defendant Obtaining Dismissal Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Former Labor Code Section 218.5 And Routine Costs In Employment Case Involving Meal Breaks

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Current Section 218.5, Requiring Bad Faith By Employee, Not Retroactive Before January 1, 2014.      In Quiles v. Koji’s Japan Inc., Case No. G049238 (4th Dist., Div. 3   April 3, 2015) (unpublished), employee in an employment case, involving multiple claims including meal breaks, added LLC defendant on an alter ego theory. Eventually, LLC defendant

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Obtaining Reversal Of Case Dismissal Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Until Remaining Claims Await Trial For Purposes Of Determining “Victor”

Cases: Prevailing Party

  Fee Request Was Premature; Appellate Court Refused To Find Equitable Fee Entitlement Basis.      Plaintiffs obtained reversal of a case dismissal when the appellate court determined some claims survived, being awarded costs on appeal. However, as we have seen from prior post, costs on appeal does not mean fees are necessarily awarded for the

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: Partial and “Mixed” Results By Plaintiffs And Cross-Complainants In Rental Burglary Dispute Supported Trial Court’s Denial Of Contractual Fees To Either Side

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

  No Clear Winner Emerged In This One.      Where litigants in a case involving both a complaint and cross-complaint win only some claims (but with a broad rental agreement fees clause), the trial judge has discretion to determine whether any side “prevailed” based on a pragmatic inquiry. In Barrera v. Jensen, Case Nos. A136322/A137418

Cases Under Review, Employment, Prevailing Party, Section 998: Employer Accepting 998 $20,000 Offer From Former Employee In Wage/Hour Suit Assessed With $162,434.25 In Fees Under Labor Code Section 1194 Given 998 Offer Was Silent On Fees/Costs

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 998

  $202,882.50 In Fees Had Been Requested.      Portugal v. Sewer and Pipeline Contractor, Inc., Case No. B251730 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 18, 2015) (unpublished) dealt with a former employee suing an employer for minimum wage/overtime compensation violations. Employee served a 998 offer, which did not allocate a $20,000 settlement offer among claims and

Civil Rights, Discovery, Prevailing Party: Disabled Plaintiff Dismissing Suit, Where Defendant Eliminated Architectural Barrier After Filing Suit, Was Properly Not Exposed To Fee Recovery Under California Disabled Persons Act Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Prevailing Party

  No One Prevailed in This Case, Both Trial and Appellate Courts Agreed, Under The Facts—But Prior Discovery Sanctions Award Did Survive.      The California Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, § 54 et seq.) [DPA] does have a reciprocal fee-shifting provision in favor of a “prevailing party.” (Unlike the American with Disabilities Act [ADA], which

Scroll to Top