Cases: Prevailing Party

Prevailing Party Determination: Litigants And Courts Need To Focus On Each Claim and Each Claim Result To Determine Who Prevailed

Cases: Prevailing Party

Second District, Division 1 Affirms CCP § 1032 Fee Determination, But Reverses and Remands For Civil Code § 1717 Recovery Calculation.      As we have discussed under our category “Prevailing Party,” the determination of prevailing party focuses on the results reached on each distinctive claim by each distinct litigant, with different statutes governing the distinct

Section 1717: Where Results Are Mixed …. Lots Of Prevailing Party Discretion

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fourth District, Division 3 Emphatically Makes the Point.      Roden v. Amerisourcebergen Corp., Case No. G041990 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 8, 2010) (certified for publication) involved a plaintiff who was disappointed in being denied an award of attorney’s fees under a supplemental executive retirement plan (with ERISA implications) after prevailing on some aspects of

Section 1717: Litigants Receiving Only Nominal Damages On Cross-Complaint Did Not Prevail, With The Other Side Receiving $250,000 In Fees As The Winner.

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

     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.,

Section 1717 And Fees Clause Interpretation: Fee Denials Against Apartment Seller And Escrow Company Reversed And Remanded For Reconsideration

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  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Purposes      In Marina Glencoe, L.P. v. Malibu Escrow Corp., Case No. B203415 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 1, 2010) (unpublished), an apartment building purchaser recovered

Jurisdiction To Award Fees And Prevailing Party Status: Borrower Substantially Reducing Loan Exposure Through Usury Defense Awarded Fees Of $43,960

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

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

Prevailing Party: California Supreme Court Decides Goodman v. Lozano

Cases: Prevailing Party

  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

Indemnity And Apportionment: $402,596.40 Fee Award Affirmed In Refusal To Defend Dispute

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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

Prevailing Party: Appeal Dismissed As Moot Where Final Resolution Has Not Yet Been Reached In Entire Dispute

Cases: Prevailing Party

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

Public Construction Prompt Payment Statutes: Winning Contractor, Surety, And Bonding Company Entitled To $150,000 In Fees After Prevailing Against Losing Subcontractor

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Fee Clause Interpretation, 998 Offers, And Routine Costs: A Three-Fer In One Case—And A Resultant POOF! Upon Reversal Of The Fee Award

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 998

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,

Scroll to Top