Court of Appeal Also Affirmed Denial of Routine Costs Because Litigant Did Not Overall “Prevail.” A recent decision from the Fourth District, Division 1 is a fresh reminder of the discretion trial courts possess and legal principles they must follow in determining whether a litigant is a “prevailing party” under Civil Code section 1717 […]
Fourth District, Division One Publishes FDIC v. Dintino. In our September 9, 2008 post, we reviewed the decision of FDIC v. Dintino. The decision held that success on noncontractual claims should not be considered when determining “prevailing party” status under Civil Code section 1717, but also indicated that work may frequently
Second District, Division One Affirms and Reverses Portions of Fee Award Under Contractual Provision and Discretionary Fee-Shifting Statutes. By now, it should be apparent that there are stark differences in how some fee-shifting statutes operate. Civil Code section 1717 mandates an award to a "prevailing party" under a contractual fees clause,
Second District, Division Eight Affirms Award in a Sharply Divided 2-1 Panel on the Fee Award Issues. This next profiled case can only be described as … a doozy! In 1998-1999, brother and sister (the eventual plaintiffs) bought two adjoining units in a Westwood 13-story condominium building
Second District Remands For Settling the Reasonable Amount of Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Usually, prevailing party determinations are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard on appeal. Not always, however. Sometimes the contractual fees clause is clear in specifying a prevailing party and one side wins a final judgment in their
High Court to Decide Whether Plaintiff Recovering No Positive Judgment Because of Section 877 Setoff Is Nevertheless the Prevailing Party for Fee/Costs Award Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032. In our June 16, 2008 post on Guerrero v. Rodan Termite Control, a recently disseminated First District, Division Three decision, we
Second District, Division Three Panel Rejects Judicial Estoppel, Self-Representation, and Third-Party Beneficiary Arguments Raised By Losing Client. An attorney’s fees clause in a retainer agreement is a great equalizer in any litigation over the proper fee charged for services by former counsel. An in pro per Client sued his Former Attorneys,
Fourth District, Division Three Reverses $2,700 Fee Award As Without Basis. The next case arose from a rather bizarre set of facts, showing fee awards will be withheld if the fee is awarded as an unwarranted penalty in the guise of a statutory fee award. This legal
Second District Affirms Fee Award Against Both Assignor and Assignee Based on California Wholesale and the Assignor’s Surety Status. One of the time-honored principles in assignment law is that assignee’s voluntary acceptance of benefits normally means consent to bear the burdens from the assignment. Civil Code sec. 1589. However, the assignor
Fourth District, Division Three So Holds In Case Involving Separate Recoveries Under Separate Contracts. One might intuitively think that there can only be one prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717. You are right, if there is one contract that is at issue. However, what happens if there are two separate
