Cases: Prevailing Party

Lodestar, Prevailing Party: Reversal Of Judgment For Cross-Complainant And Increased Recovery For Plaintiffs Made Plaintiffs The Prevailing Party So A Fee Order Remand Was Necessary

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Prevailing Party

Given Some Reductions For The Cross-Complaint And Other Issues, Fee Award Had To Be Reassessed—Initial Award Was $388,541, A 50% Reduction From The Original Request.             In Perera v. Moine, Case No. B319315 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 18, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiffs were the prevailing party in a breach of contract dispute (based on an […]

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: HOA’s $139,977 Attorney’s Fees Award, Made After Homeowners Dismissed Their Lawsuit Without Prejudice And Did Not Pursue Arbitration Before The Case Dismissal, Was Properly Granted

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

“Prevailing Party” Definition Under Davis-Stirling Act Different Than Under Civil Code § 1717.             In Matus v. Freedom West Homes Corp., Case No. A165736 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 21, 2023) (unpublished), a group of homeowner plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against HOA, which was ordered into arbitration.  Plaintiffs dismissed their court case without prejudice 15

Prevailing Party: Cross-Complainant Winning More Than Plaintiff Was The Prevailing Party For Fee Recovery Purposes

Cases: Prevailing Party

Cross-Complainant Obtained An $88,130.06 Net Recovery, Such That A Subsequent $90,013 Prevailing Party Fee Determination Was No Abuse Of Discretion.             In VanLaw Food Products, Inc. v. New England Counry Foods, LLC, Case No. G061375 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 6, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff received $27,441.25 under its complaint, and cross-complaint received $115,571.31 on its

Prevailing Party: Tenant’s Successful Demurrer, Resulting In A Dismissal Of A Case Without Prejudice To Refiling A Future Complaint, Did Not Entitle Tenant To Prevailing Party Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party

An Interim Dismissal Without Prejudice Did Not Dispositively Determine Who Prevailed.             Tenant, during the COVID-19 pandemic, successfully demurred to a landlord complaint on the basis that the lawsuit was premature given pandemic rules which did not allow the suit to be filed when it was.  The demurrer was sustained without prejudice to filing a

Costs, Prevailing Party: Party Achieving Partial Success, And Reversal Of Prior Fee Prevailing Party Adverse Against It, Was Not Entitled To Fees On Remand Because Lower Court Properly Determined It Did Not Prevail

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party

The Appellate Win Did Not Allow For Prevailing Party Fees, Because The Ultimate Litigation Outcome Result Was Dispositive—No One Prevailed.             The next case, Waterwood Enterprises, LLC v. City of Long Beach, Case No. B316269 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 26, 2023) (unpublished) had a topsy-turvy procedural history, but it at long last has seemed

Prevailing Party: Where Cross-Complaint Was Dismissed Without Prejudice And Subject To A Tolling Agreement, Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion To Determine There Was No Prevailing Party For A Fee Recovery—As Yet

Cases: Prevailing Party

Costs Prevailing Party Determination Was Not Dispositive As To Fee Prevailing Party Determination.             Davis v. Philpott Meeks, LP, Case No. B316618 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 17, 2023) (unpublished) was a situation where plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer complaint, generating various cross-complaints for premises liability and indemnity.  Certain cross-claimants dismissed their cross-complaints without prejudice

Arbitration, Prevailing Party: Attorney Fees And Costs Award Of $334,458.41 Affirmed Against Plaintiff Attorney Who Achieved, Under A Confirmed Arbitration Award, A Monetary Recovery Of A Small Bit Of The $3,720 In Fees He Sought From Defendant Client

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party

The Award Was Governed By The Statutory Fee Provisions Provided For By The Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act, Not The Parties’ Contract Fee Provision.             Under the MFAA (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq.), enacted to eliminate bargaining power disparity between attorneys and clients trying to resolve fee disputes, neither party to a

Arbitration, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees: Client Who Reversed Post-MFAA De Novo Trial Results And Who Confirmed The Prior Arbitration Award Was The Prevailing Party

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Because Client Had To Hire Appellate Attorneys Reversing The De Novo Trial Results, Client Was Awarded $334,458.11 In Fees/Costs—Affirmed By The Appellate Court.             Soni v. Cartograph, Inc., Case No. B316270 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 23, 2023) (unpublished) is quite a megillah of an arbitration/litigation odyssey about a client-attorney dispute over fees.  Looks like

Costs, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Section 998, Trespass: Prevailing Defendant/Cross-Complainant Obtains Attorney’s Fees Under Trespass Fee Shifting Statute Despite Receiving Nominal Damages And Also Receives Routine Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 998, Cases: Trespass

Losing Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Denied Private Attorney General Fee Request In Opinion With Several Cross-Over Issues.              Direct Action Everywhere SF Bay Area etc. v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, Case No. A162702 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 1, 2023) (unpublished) is an opinion with many cross-over issues as identified in our main title to this post.             In

Prevailing Party: $78,500 Attorney’s Fees/Costs Award Affirmed Against Non-Prevailing Party Admitting In A Summary Judgment Non-Opposition That Conceded Their Cross-Claims Had No Merit

Cases: Prevailing Party

Admissions In The Summary Judgment Proceeding Were Preclusive.             The next case, Blue Fountain Pools and Spas, Inc. v. Zauss, Case No. E077923 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 30, 2023) (unpublished), cautions litigants that admissions in law and motion non-oppositions can have preclusive results in later fee motions.  In this one, cross-complainants admitted in a

Scroll to Top