Compel Arbitration and U.S. Supreme Court Cert Petition Fees Reversed, Based on Frog Creek Partners. It will not come as a surprise that Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc., 206 Cal.App.4th 515 (1st Dist., Div. 5 2012) will make our Top 20 List at the end of the year. Several appellate […]
“Reverse” Unity of Interest Argument Did Not Dictate Different Result. Civil Code section 3344.1, California’s right to publicity statute, does contain a mandatory fee-shifting clause in favor of the prevailing party, with attorney’s fees and costs being the carrot for such a party. The next case involves an interesting procedural situation in a
$25,675 Was Awarded in Favor of Winning Defendants. Plaintiffs, suing on a loan agreement with a fees clause, lost on statute of limitations (time bar) grounds to defendants in Hale v. Adams, Case No. B234826 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 14, 2012) (unpublished). Defendants then moved for and recovered $25,675 in attorney’s fees
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
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
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,
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
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
“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 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.
