Cases: Prevailing Party

Statutory Fees: Attorney’s Fees Motion Preserves Fee Request, With Claimants Not Having To File Costs Memorandum Seeking Fees

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Prevailing Party

Second District, Division 3 Rebuffs Contrary Technical Argument.      In Brownstein v. Smith, Case No. B205864 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 1, 2009), plaintiff lost a condominium dispute against other condo owners arising out of CC&Rs. Defendants were entitled to seek fees under Civil Code section 1354(a), a fee-shifting provision applying to parties seeking to […]

Civil Code Section 1717: Sixth District Affirms Trial Court Denial Of Fees To Defendant Where Plaintiff Dismissed Both Contract And Fraud Claims

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Sixth District Applies Reasoning of Santisas.      The next case shows how appellate courts apply a pragmatic standard in gauging whether a party prevailed in order to recover attorney’s fees, even after a voluntarily dismissal of a fraud count where fees might be recoverable under an expansive Purchase Agreement clause.      Almog v. Mueller,

Homeowner Associations: Two Neighbors Duke It Out—One Neighbor Finally Prevails On Appeal, Meaning A Prior Denial of Fees Was Erroneous

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 3 Remands for Fee Redetermination in “Acrid Dispute Between Neighbors.”      Disputes between homeowner associations and members or neighbors in a common interest subdivision seem to result in overboilings of emotions and (ultimately) litigation resources. Many times, the final result—where both sides seek to recoup hefty attorney’s fees—results in a “wash,” with

Federal Routine Costs and Civil Rights Fees: Ninth Circuit Rejects Creative “Prevailing Party” Costs Claim By Losing Plaintiff And Remands Denial Of Defense Fees Decision For Reconsideration

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

Illinois Sitting Judge Shadur Raises Alchemy Analogy in Court of Appeal Decision.      Federal court costs are routinely rewarded to the prevailing party—especially the party winning a summary judgment motion or trial against a plaintiff. Even though this happened in the context of a summary judgment proceeding, the plaintiffs in the next case tried to

Civil Code Section “Prevailing Party” . . . . Court Of Appeal Reverses Determination That Property Seller Getting $29.75 Million Properties Back Was Not The Winner For Fee Purposes Where Buyer Got Back $1.13 Million Deposit

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 1 Rejects “You Won One, I Won One” Scoreboard Approach to Section 1717.      This next case shows that appellate courts do indeed apply a pragmatic test when deciding whether a “prevailing party” determination rightfully gauged who obtained greater relief for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717. (For

Civil Code Section 1717: Court of Appeal Reverses Fee Award Given That Neither Side Prevailed Under The Contract

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Fifth District Overturns Based on a Pragmatic Assessment of Litigation Results.      Who says that appellate courts are not pragmatic in their assessment of who prevailed for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees? That is the law after all, and the next case is an illustration of where a cause was reversed because neither side prevailed

Civil Code Section 1717: Litigants’ Failure To Be Adjudged General Partners, Although Winning A Small Quantum Meruit Award, Justified Non-prevailing Party Conclusion

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Result Was An Adverse Fee/Cost Award of Over $275,000      In Gupta v. Shue, Case No. B198449 (Apr. 30, 2009) (unpublished), both sides engaged in bitter, protracted litigation over whether each received, by assignment, a general partnership interest in a real estate limited partnership—with the limited partnership caught in the middle of the litigation. After

Arbitration: Appellate Fees Awardable Upon Prior Reversal Without Awaiting the Final Result

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

Second District Panel Splits 2-1 on Whether Contractual Clause Allowed for Fee Recovery From Post-Arbitration Judicial Proceeding Win Before the “Dispute” Was Finally Resolved.      The next case illustrates how even appellate jurists will come to different conclusions when construing a contractual fees clause where the matter is one for de novo review based on

Civil Code Section 1717: Fee Award Reversed Because Prevailing Party Determination Is Different Than The Standard For Adjudging An Award Of Routine Costs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 7 Remands for Further Fee Proceedings.      City of Los Angeles won attorney’s fees against a replacement contractor selected by a bonding surety, where surety and replacement contractor entered into contractual agreements incorporating original agreements between City and the replaced contractor. Replacement contractor lost in the construction litigation, with the trial court

Scroll to Top