Cases: Prevailing Party

Appealability/Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Because Lower Court Erred In Sustaining Demurrer, Party Garnering Fee Award Was Not Prevailing Party

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  $22,230 Fee Award Went POOF!      In Vestar/Kimco Tustin, L.P. V. Sesar, Case No. G048831 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 30, 2014) (unpublished), the lower court sustained a demurrer to a breach of lease action and overruled a demurrer to a breach of guaranty cause of action, with plaintiff filing a voluntary dismissal of […]

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Respondent Winning “Broom Clean” Property Vacation Dispute Garners Fee Award As Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Respondent Satisfied Pragmatic Test for Prevailing under 1717.      In Adelman v. Adelman, Case No. B248303 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 13, 2014) (unpublished), respondent was awarded fees after successfully litigating the issue of whether appellant vacated a property and left it in “broom clean” condition. Respondent proved that she had to incur clean-up

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Guarantor Of Arbitration Award Was Properly Hit With $85,500 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Arbitration Award Winner Did Prevail In Subsequent Action, Despite Uncertainty As to Whether Fees Were Damages or Post-trial Costs.      Whyaduck Productions, Inc. v. Block, Case No. B245051 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 9, 2014) (unpublished) is a case which somewhat flummoxed the appellate court given a sparse record and the position of the

Prevailing Party: Trope Prohibition Prevents Successful Sole Proprietorship From Collecting $120,912 In Fees From Former Clients

Cases: Prevailing Party

  Associates Were Working For Sole Proprietorship, Not Purely Personal Interests of Attorney; Carpenter Case Found On Point.      Soni v. Wellmike Enterprise Co. Ltd., Case No. B242288 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 26, 2014) (published) is another addition to the jurisprudence on the Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995) prohibition—if you as an

Prevailing Party/Section 998/Section 1717: Plaintiffs In Sewer Easement Dispute With Nearby Defendants Not Entitled To Fees, While Defendants Properly Awarded $478,022 In Fees Under CCP § 998

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  Result Was “Mixed” For Plaintiffs, While Plaintiffs Did Not Eclipse Defense 998 Offer.      The result in Smith v. Esmailzadeh, Case No. B239828 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 19, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates well our Mission Statement that "[a]ll too often attorney fees become the tail that wags the dog in litigation."  Deane Gardenhome Assn.

Probate/Prevailing Party/Section 1717/Settlement: Voluntary Dismissal Of Probate Petition To Confirm Settlement Properly Supported Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Opposing Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  Santisas Drove the Result in this One.      In Berry v. Berry, Case No. D062914 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 18, 2014) (unpublished), one co-trustee/aligned other parties were not happy when a probate court denied their request for attorney’s fees under a settlement agreement fees clause after another co-trustee (a brother, of course) voluntarily

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

Scroll to Top