Some Fee Recoveries Went POOF, Some Stayed, and Some Will Be Re-Done. Kirk v. Dimitri, Case No. D058758 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 13, 2013) (unpublished) was a multi-party case arising from a failed residential real estate venture in Fallbrook. Ultimately, a jury and then a court in an equitable trial entered various […]
Briefing Looks Completed; Issue Is Whether Procedural Victory Based on Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction Entitles Litigant to Prevailing Party Status Under Civil Code Section 1717. On both September 22, 2012 and December 27, 2012, we posted on Kandy Kiss of California, Inc. v. Tex-Ellent, Inc., a Second District decision affirming an award of attorney’s
Appellate Court Followed Maughan’s “Bright Line” Test on Appeal. In this one, the appellate court had to review whether a party truly prevailed on appeal in a prior appellate proceeding involving a SLAPP determination. The lower court said the party did, but the appellate court reversed. White and Yellow Cab, Inc. v.
In Demakas v. Guibault, Case No. A137144 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 23, 2013) (unpublished), a plaintiff voluntarily dismissed a complaint containing both contract and tort claims. The trial court actually awarded $20,000 in fees to the non-dismissing party. This one was reversed. The dismissal of the contract claims did not give
Be Careful in Saying “Thank You.” HPSC, Inc. v. Tiffany, Case No. D061142 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 19, 2013) (unpublished) is a situation where one defendant was dismissed upon an oral motion after a summary judgment argument, with the court expressly indicating the defendant was dismissed upon the condition that both sides
Neither One Obtained Sought-After Litigation Objectives. When a lower court has discretion to decide who the prevailing party is, unless the facts show otherwise, the abuse of discretion generally applies on appellate review and dictates the result. That is what happened here. In Barez v. Ni, Case No. H037572 (6th Dist. July
Also, Plaintiff Only Obtained a “Mixed” Win Rather Than An “Unqualified” One. In Chan v. Lo, Case No. B239783 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 9, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained some relief (with the court determining she owed less than the face amount of a promissory note), but still was found to owe note
Second District, Division One Disagrees With Contrary Conclusion Reached by First District, Division Two in Kors. After plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against their former attorneys, those attorneys successfully moved to compel arbitration in the pending lawsuit, with the lower court also awarding them $67,930.50 in attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in the
Tiso v. Stier, Case No. D060061 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 20, 2013) (unpublished) involved a pre-trial, formal dismissal of a reformation count where a Civil Code section 1717 fee clause was potentially in play. The appellate court, in reversing a fee award, determined that the dismissal of the reformation cause of action,
Santisas Was Dispositive. This case was not a hard one for the appellate court to decide. A cross-complainant did a formal dismissal without prejudice of a cross-complaint, which inspired the lower court to deny a fee recovery request by the opposite side. The appellate court, upon appeal of the fee denial in Flanagan
