If one side does not win a clear victory in a case (such as nominal damages), the lower court can certainly award fees to the other side where it beat major exposure on claims involving a fee-shifting clause. That is exactly what happened in the next case we explore. In Core Wealth Mgt., […]
Second District, Division 7 Finds Reversal of Prejudgment Interest Issue Requires Reexamination of Prevailing Party Determination and the Escrow Instructions Fee Clauses Were Sufficiently Broad for Fee Entitlement Purposes In Marina Glencoe, L.P. v. Malibu Escrow Corp., Case No. B203415 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 1, 2010) (unpublished), an apartment building purchaser recovered
Trial Court Had Jurisdiction to Award Fees While Merits Appeal Pending and Borrower Was the Prevailing Party. Borrower on a loan, even after an initial appeal, reduced a loan balance to only $3,602.72 after an offset for usurious interest. The lower court refused to award costs to lender and also awarded $43,960 to borrower
Plaintiff Cannot Recover Fees From Nonsettling Litigants Where Offsets From Settling Litigants Result in a Zero Judgment. The California Supreme Court, in a much anticipated decision, has decided an important “prevailing party” issue in Goodman v. Lozano, Case S162655 (Cal. Supreme Ct. Feb. 4, 2010) (published). Our state supreme court
Sixth District Found Opposing Party Forfeited Challenge to Billing Record Objections When It Failed to Attack Omissions Through Discovery Motion. In the next case, the Sixth District—in UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, Case No. H033862 (6th Dist. Jan. 22, 2010) (unpublished)—affirmed a $402,596.40 fee award under a contractual provision when sustaining a trial
Sixth District Finds Challenge to Superseded Ruling is Moot. The next case is an illustration of the principle that prevailing party status usually cannot be determined “until the dust has finally settled.” In Campagna v. Gatley Properties, Case No. H034112 (6th Dist. Jan. 21, 2010) (unpublished), after two prior appeals, the appellate court
Third District’s Affirmance of Prompt Payment Statute Result Ices Correctness of Fee Award. In one of our past posts (see January 16, 2009 discussion of the unpublished decision of Li v. Wu), we briefly discussed one of the construction prompt payment statutes. The Legislature has enacted several “prompt payment” statutes designed to make sure
Substantial Fee Award Reversed Because Fees Provision Did Not Reach Noncontract Recovery, While Rest of Trial Court’s Fee/Costs Orders Affirmed on Appeal. In Gaggero v. First Federal Bank of California, Case No. B207273 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 30, 2009) (unpublished), Borrower voluntarily dismissed with prejudice his equitable, statutory and breach of contract claims,
Fourth District, Division 1 Utilizes “Pragmatic” Prevailing Party Test and Determines Narrow Fee Clause Did Not Allow For Recovery on Successful Tort Claim. In a dispute involving a brokerage arrangement with respect to a mobile home, seller won a small compensatory and punitive damages jury verdict against brokers for breach of fiduciary duty, although
Second District, Division 8 Affirms $250,000 Fee Award to Prevailing Defendants. A broadly-worded attorney’s fees provision—such as one allowing for fee recovery in “any action whatsoever arising from rights and obligations established under [the] Bylaws, including but not limited to actions for damages resulting from a breach of these Bylaws or actions for specific
