Cases: Prevailing Party

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Plaintiff Achieving Objective In Defeating Bail Bond Annual Renewal Fee Was Not Properly Assessed With Fees As “Non-Prevailing Party”

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Plaintiff Did Achieve What He Wanted, So Reversal of Fortunes—He Prevailed!      The appellate court in Zock v. Esparza, Case No. D062784 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished) reversed as a matter of law a lower court’s grant of fees against a plaintiff who actually achieved his main litigation results. Basically, plaintiff […]

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Fee Claimant Under Contractual Deed Of Trust Clauses Still Must Show It Is A Prevailing Party Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  “Losing Party” Not Entitled to Fee Under Most Contractual Fee Clauses, Muses Appellate Court.      The fee claimant in Vail Lake Rancho California, LLC v. Abreu, Case No. D061892 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 7, 2014) (unpublished) somewhat flummoxed the appellate court on review in challenging a denial of fee recovery under two contractual

Prevailing Party/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Losing Against Defendant Properly Exposed To Adverse Fee Award Under Mobilehome Residency Law

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Arose Is Arose Is Arose Is Arose Gertrude Stein.  Carl Van Vechten, photographer.  1935.  Library of Congress. “Arose From” Language Encompassed Other Claims; Losing Plaintiff Did Not Prevail Given Specific Prevailing Party Definition Under Statute.      In the fee area, one needs to pay particular attention to the wording of a specific fee-shifting statute. The

Intellectual Property/Prevailing Party: $111,993 To Prevailing Copyright Defendant Justified Under 17 U.S.C. § 505

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Prevailing Party

  This One Involved a Copyright Fight Over a Hookah Water Container.       Costumed hookah smokers.  Matthew B. Brady, photographer.  Between 1850-60.  Library of Congress.      Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc., Case No. 12-56331 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2014) (published)—great name for a case, isn’t it—was copyright litigation over plaintiff’s claim that it had

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: LLC Co-Manager Obtaining Buy-Out In Dissolution After Two Years Of Litigation Entitled To Prevailing Party Fee Recovery Under LLC Operating Agreement

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Fee/Costs Award of $96,518 Affirmed on Appeal in Favor of Prevailing LLC Co-Manager.      Prevailing party status, we would observe, does focus on pragmatics, especially under Civil Code section 1717 (which allows recovery of fees under certain circumstances where there is a fees clause). The next case illustrates that in the context of a

Costs/Eminent Domain/Prevailing Party: Inverse Condemnation Plaintiffs Obtaining Earlier Reversal Of Defense Summary Judgment Entitled To Routine Appellate Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: Prevailing Party

  However, Attorney’s Fees Award Was Premature Until Judgment or Settlement Obtained Under Inverse Condemnation Fee-Shifting Provision.      In an earlier appeal, Plaintiffs had obtained a reversal of a defense summary judgment in an inverse condemnation case, with the appellate court directing that the lower court consider a request for fees under Code of Civil

Costs/POOF!/Prevailing Party: Reversal of Impact Fee Component Judgment Meant Prevailing Party Status Had To Be Revisited, But Not Costs Award

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Substantial Fee Award Went POOF!      Estancia Coastal, LLC v. KB Home Coastal, Inc., Case No. D062219 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 16, 2013) (unpublished) involved a big fight between a developer hit with $6.5 million in developmental mitigation fees against assignee of a land owner giving an option to developer. The

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation/Prevailing Party: Broadly-Worded Fees Clause Allowed For Recovery Of Fees On Noncontract Claims Following Voluntary Dismissal In Wake Of Pleading Motions

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Fee Motion Properly Filed and No Allocation Between Claims Required.      Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its contract-based/tortious interference case against one defendant without prejudice in the wake of pending pleading motions, with the trial court determining that fully requested fees of $16,926 were due to prevailing defendant.      Plaintiff’s multi-pronged attack in Oxnard Corner, LLC

Scroll to Top