Increased Attention in the Legal Community; Co-Contributor Marc Quoted in California Lawyer; Co-Contributor Mike To Speak At July 8 Century City Panel. In our August 3 and 6, 2010 posts, we discussed contract litigation insurance (CLI), a product being offered by Sonoma Risk Insurance Agency. We described the coverage in depth in those […]
Trial Court Found Prevailing Party Based On Costs Recovery Standard, One That Diverges From the Apt One for Fee Award. The next decision illustrates an important distinction often times glossed over or mistakenly ignored with respect to a determination of the prevailing party. The distinction is this: there is a difference between prevailing party
Lack of Signatory Status in Moving Documents Was Dispositive. One of the ABC’s in moving for fee entitlement is to show a contract or statute forming a predicate basis for a fee motion. Without it, a litigant is generally left with the American Rule, which does not allow a party to recover for fees.
Fee Award Does Not Have to be Proportional to Damages Award for Civil Code Section 1717 “Prevailing Party” Purposes. Here is one which, yet again, reiterates that trial courts have tremendous discretion in determining the “prevailing party” under Civil Code section 1717 as well as the amount of damages to be awarded–which do not
Despite County’s Breach of Completion Date, Continued Negotiations Waived Any Breach and Mixed Results Sustained Fee Denial. Unless you have a clear win under a contractual fees clause, a trial judge has discretion to determine who the prevailing party is under Civil Code section 1717. We have blogged on many cases that underscore this
Second District, Division 4 So Holds in Family Law Judgment Enforcement Case. Although deciding that a debt owed under an expired note and unenforceable trust deed still survives for enforcement under Family Code section 291, the litigants in each side of this case actually got both good news and bad news. Plaintiff succeeded in
Fee Denial Affirmed by Fourth District, Division 2. Cannan Construction v. Majewski, Case No. E048784 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 16, 2010) (unpublished) demonstrates that the trial court has substantial discretion in determining who is a “prevailing party” under fee shifting statutes. In this one, plaintiff won quantum meruit recovery from defendant, but
Second District, Division 6 Finds No Unreasonableness in Trial Court Awards. “Scorched earth” is a frequently bandied phrase in litigation. However, if a trial court believes that you as a litigant have engaged in it, this strategy may cost you big when it comes time for reckoning fee/cost recovery to the prevailing party after
Fourth District, Division One Affirms Trial Court’s “Wash” Decision on Issues. The next case involves a melange of fee and costs issues arising from a contract and civil rights case in which plaintiff recovered nothing on her claims but beat school district’s contract cross-claim. That gave rise to all sort of prevailing party claims
Second District, Division Four Reversed Costs Denial, Affirmed Fees Denial. The next case shows that courts pragmatically gauge prevailing party status when in comes to fees and costs awards—costs may be mandatory upon a voluntary dismissal, but not necessarily an award of attorney’s fees in the same circumstance (with the fees award being the
