“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.
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.
$22,000 Winner Obtained Fees Despite Not Obtaining Over $716,000 in Sought-After Damages. Where no party under Civil Code section 1717 is a clear winner, the court has discretion to determine the prevailing party. That principle was at play in the next opinion, even though the prevailing parties only won 3% of the total
Appellate Court Reversed Trial Court Fee Denial, Finding Unity of Interest Rule Only Applied to Costs, Not Fee Awards. Hill v. Affirmed Housing Group, Case No. H035541 (6th Dist. Mar. 12, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where trustees of a trust sued an LLC and its managing member on the theory that LLC’s
$332,697.80 Fee Award Resulted From Fee Clauses In Trust Deed/Promissory Note For 5 Year Old-Plus Litigation Over Sellers’ Carryback Loan. Goradia v. Vega, Case No. B228128 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 5, 2012) (unpublished) again demonstrates that the “prevailing party” determination under Civil Code section 1717 is a pragmatic one, with trial and
Court of Appeal Also Chastised Respondent For Relying on Non-California Authorities in Attempting to Sustain Result. Sadr & Barrera, APLC v. Cyriacks, Case No. D058417 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 28, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where an appellate court reversed a Civil Code section 1717 attorney’s fees award to a default judgment
Trial Court’s Denial of Fees Reversed Because Bank Was Prevailing Party. Meeker v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. B225289 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 26, 2012) (unpublished) illustrates that Civil Code section 1717’s mandate of awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing party is indeed obligatory in nature, and that fee award denials–even
Opinion Will Give Added Importance to Section 998 Costs(Fee)-Shifting. Well, well, we can report that there has been an interesting appellate “explosion” of opinions in the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 area. The First District, Division 5, has entered into the fray. In SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. v. Five Bridges
No One Got A Clear Win, So Go Your Own Way, Says Appellate Court in Much More Eloquent Fashion. Under Civil Code section 1717, ya gotta prevail–and that is a pragmatic determination, which means ya gotta be a clear winner (not just a contender). In the next case, both plaintiff and cross-complainant did
