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
Unpublished Decision in Our May 30, 2008 Post is Now Published. In our May 30, 2008 post, we reported on Lange v. Schilling, Case No. C055471 (3d Dist. May 28, 2008), which strictly construed the CAR purchase agreement mediation clause. Lange closely tracked the reasoning of Justice Fybel in Frei v.
Second District So Holds in Topanga and Fourth District, Division One Concurs in Its Unpublished Kilgore Decision. In our Leading Case No. 6, Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 615-617 (1998), the California Supreme Court determined that a pretrial voluntarily dismissal of a contract claim between two signatories prevents the dismissed
Fourth District, Division One Harmonizes the Interplay Between Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and Civil Code section 1717(b)(2). Recently, there has been a rash of decisions dealing with offers to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. The next case resolves what happens when section 998 collides with Civil
Castro Holds That A Practical Prevailing Party Test Governs An Award of Fees When A Lis Pendens Is Withdrawn. Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38 provides that the prevailing party on a motion to expunge a lis pendens is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in bringing or
First District Overturns Substantial Fee Award Based on Misreading of Prior Appeal Decisions in the Same Case. We have to hand it to Justice Simons of the First District, Division Five. Faced with a complicated set of facts and a substantial fee winner, he—as author on behalf of a 3-0 panel—correctly
