Cases: Prevailing Party

Prevailing Party: Frog Creek Partners Found Instructive By Fourth District, Division 3 In Finding Fee Award Premature To Party Defeating Petition To Compel Arbitration Where Merits Of Contract Claim Not Yet Resolved In Main Action

Cases: Prevailing Party

  Defense Might Prevail In End, So Let’s Wait and See.      We predicted in our May 27 and June 5, 2012 posts that Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc., 206 Cal.App.4th 515 (2012) would be an oft-cited decision when dealing with prevailing party status for fee purposes where there are interim successes […]

Arbitration/Prevailing Party: $37,500 Interim Contract Fee Award Sustained Despite The Fact There Was No Final Judgment At Fee Award Time

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Difference Between This and Frog Creek: Final Award Occurred After Interim Fee Award, So There Was Finality.      On May 27, 2012, we reported on the First District, Division 5’s published opinion in Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc., 2012 Cal.App. LEXIS 625 (2012), where the appellate court concluded that the trial

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Successor Trust Deed Lender Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Recovery Against Extinguished Lienholder Based On “Practical Liability” Section 1717 Doctrine

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Saucedo Case Found to Support Fee Recovery.      Saucedo v. Mercury Sav. & Loan Assn., 111 Cal.App.3d 309, 315 (1980) is an interesting section 1717 decision where plaintiffs (nonassuming grantees) of a property subject to a note/trust deed beat the lender under loan documents with a fees clause. Plaintiffs were allowed fee recovery because,

Arbitration/Prevailing Party: Only One Prevailing Party For Civil Code Section 1717 Purposes Under One Contract After Exhaustion Of Arbitration Proceedings

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Parameters of “Discrete Win” Doctrine Probed, With Interim Wins On Petitions To Compel Arbitration Not Determining Eventual Winner Unless Discrete Proceeding Ended Matter.      Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Brown, Case No. A129651 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 24, 2012) (certified for publication) is a scholarly opinion considering, in a two party-one contract context

Prevailing Party/Section 1717/Section 998: Unlicensed Alarm Company Subject To Fee Exposure After Losing To Customer Under Contract With Fee Clause

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

  Also, Customer Sent 998 Offer Not Beaten by Alarm Company.      Justice Fybel, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local Santa Ana appellate court in Emergency Technologies, Inc. v. Garcia, Case No. G045685 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 4, 2012) (unpublished), affirmed a $41,162 fee award to a customer arising out of

Arbitration/Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Prevailing Party On Sole Contract Claim Entitled To Fees

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  “Each Side Bear Own Costs” Appellate Directive Did Not Bar Later Fee Request.      Tenzera, Inc. v. Osterman, Case No. B228189 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 19, 2012) (partially published; fee discussion not published) presented a situation where, after remand from a prior appellate opinion in the same case, a trial court denied attorney’s

Homeowner Associations/Prevailing Party: HOA Winning Preliminary Injunction That Produced Repairs To Homeowner’s Deck Was The Prevailing Party Even After HOA Dismissed Complaint Without Prejudice After Repairs Made

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Homeowner Had to Pay Fees of About $35,000, But Appellate Court Had To Face An Olio Of Civil Code Section 1354 “Prevailing Party” And Stay/Preliminary Injunction Bond Issues.      Okay, here we go with another homeowners association (HOA)-homeowners fight that, ta! da!, produced an ultimate fight over who was owed attorney’s fees and costs.

Section 1717: Borrower Prevailing On Demurrer Sustained Without Leave Is Prevailing Party Despite Lender’s After-the-Fact With Prejudice Dismissal In The Wake Of A Fee Motion

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Case Proceeded to a Determinative Stage, So Fees Were Recoverable In Order to Prevent Procedural Gamesmanship.      The problem here was that the demurrer without leave ruling was a “determinative adjudication” that could not be undone by a dismissal, whether with or without prejudice. (Goldtree v. Spreckels, 135 Cal. 666, 672-673 (1902); Wells v.

Scroll to Top