Cases: Prevailing Party

Construction: Prevailing City Retaining Funds Does Not Divest Its Prevailing Party Status Because It Had To Eventually Turnover Retained Funds Over The Amount of the Merits Judgment

Cases: Prevailing Party

  Section 1717 Still Allowed Recovery to the Prevailing Party.      The Fifth District, in Greg Opinski Construction, Inc. v. City of Oakdale, Case Nos. F060219/F060727 (5th Dist. Oct. 6, 2011) (certified for partial publication; fee discussion not published), affirmed a lower court decision finding that the city was entitled to recover from its general […]

SLAPP: Sloppy Record Scotches Fees, But Appeal Court Synthesizes SLAPP Wisdom

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: SLAPP

Fourth District, Div. 2, Underscores That Compliance With Basic Appellate Procedure Is Necessary to Obtain Review of SLAPP Fees Issue.      The next case, Dean Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency, et al., Case No. E051217 (4th Dist. Div. 2, 8/18/11) (certified for publication), involves a complaint alleging causes of action deriving from purported racial

Employment: Employer Denied An Award Of Routine Costs After Winning An Overtime Compensation Case Gets Vindication On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Prevailing Party Entitled to Routine Costs in Labor Code section 1194 Overtime Compensation Case.      Employer in Plancich v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. E050631 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 11, 2011) (certified for publication) defensed employee in an overtime compensation/meal and rest break/failure to maintain records case. However, the trial court denied

Employment/Prevailing Party: Breach Of Partnership Agreement Claim Did Trigger Unpaid Wage Fee Shifting Statute

Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

  However, Lower Court Correctly Determined Plaintiff Was Not Prevailing Party.      Labor Code section 218.5 is a prevailing party fee-shifting provision for claims involving unpaid wages. That section was central to the next case, specifically with the question funneling down to who prevailed.      In Lutz v. Sortwell, Case No. D055792 (4th Dist., Div.

Prevailing Party: Charter School, Not Successful In Revocation Proceeding On Appeal, Could Not Recover Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party

  Neither Private Attorney General Statute Nor Government Code § 800 Warranted Fees.      Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. L.A. County Office of Education, Case Nos. B212966/B214470 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 12, 2011) (certified for publication) reversed a charter school’s revocation decision win below against L.A. County. As a result, the lower court’s denial

Section 1717/Prevailing Party: Only Winning Fee Recovery Issue On Appeal Does Not Make One A Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Plaintiff Won Below, But Denied Fees Based on Trope, With Affirmance on Fee Recovery Not Making Defendant the Prevailing Party.      The next case is an elegant, short unpublished decision that demonstrates Civil Code section 1717 “prevailing party” status must be based upon consideration of the whole lawsuit, not just an appellate win on

Costs/Prevailing Party: Where Party Obtains Nonmonetary Relief In Mixed Claims Litigation, Costs Prevailing Party Determination Is A Discretionary Call

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Attorney Winning Contractual Costs Assessment Dispute Collected Substantial Costs.      Here is one demonstrating how prevailing party costs determinations are frequently discretionary in nature in multi-count litigation involving both monetary and nonmonetary claims.      In Petrik v. Mahaffey, Case No. G042114 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 9, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff was represented by a

Arbitration/Prevailing Party: Client’s Efforts In Compelling Contractual Arbitration Under Arbitration-Bearing Fee Clause Gives Rise To Fee Recovery

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Appellate Court So Holds in Prior Case After a Rehearing.      In a prior post on October 13, 2010, we reviewed the case of Benjamin, Weill & Mazer v. Kors, Case No. A125732 (1st Dist., Div. 2), which was published but then erased from the books after the appellate court granted a rehearing on

Scroll to Top