Cases: Prevailing Party

Prevailing Party: Lower Court’s Determination That Cross-Defendant Did Not Prevail In Lawsuit, Where Cross-Defendant Paid Some Settlement Funds To Plaintiff and Dueling Summary Adjudication/Motions Were Granted, Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Prevailing Party

Cross-Defendant Did Not Obtain Its Crucial Litigation Objectives.             Catalina Media Development, LLC v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp., Case Nos. B306012/B309162 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 20, 2022) (unpublished) demonstrates how a discretionary no “prevailing party” determination is not easily overturned unless it is lopsided in nature.             In this one, a servicer responsible for elevator […]

POOF!, Prevailing Party: Court Of Appeal Determines That Defendant Did Not Prevail Such That $454,071.50 Fee And Additional Costs Award To County Went POOF!

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

This Was A 2-1 Decision; Dissenting Justice Would Have Given Deference To Trial Court’s Reversed Prevailing Party Determination.             Just to show how prevailing party determinations can be to subject to different interpretations, we now post on Youssef v. County of Los Angeles, Case Nos. B302773/B306187 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 15, 2022) (unpublished).  The

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Performance Bond Surety Protecting Contractor Was Not The Prevailing Party Under Civil Code Section 1717 Where City Defensed Contractor’s Contract Claims And Surety Held City’s Contractual Recovery To Just $1.00

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Lopsided Results May Make One A Prevailing Party, But The Outcome Was Mixed So The Lower Court Had Discretion To Determine No Side Prevailed.             In the Civil Code section 1717 area, a prevailing party is one which has only “good news” as far as prevailing in litigation.  Anything else, unless a result is overwhelmingly

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: 2/4 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Denial Of $216,610 In Section 1717 Attorneys’ Fees To Prevailing Defendant Who Entered Into A Contract With Plaintiff That Contained An Attorneys’ Fees Clause

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

There Was No Basis For Section 1717 Attorneys’ Fees Because Plaintiff’s Action Was Not On The Contract, And Defendant Failed To Apportion Fees For Its Successful Cross-Complaint On The Contract.             Plaintiff retained defendant law firm to defend him in a legal malpractice lawsuit, and the parties entered into a retainer agreement which contained an

Experts, Prevailing Party, Section 998: Attorneys’ Fees Totaling Over $3.7 Million Plus Costs Totaling $367,192.84 Awarded To Two Prevailing Party Defendants Affirmed On Appeal.

Cases: Experts, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 998

Costs Award To One Defendant Included $209,886.89 In Expert Witness Fees Because Plaintiff Had Rejected And Failed To Beat That Defendant’s Section 998 Offer Of $50,000 Plus Waiver Of Fees And Costs.             This next case provides a cautionary tale about the importance of giving careful consideration to reasonable section 998 offers – especially when

Prevailing Party: Sixth District Affirms $320,100 In Attorneys’ Fee Awarded Pursuant To Contractual Attorney Fee Provisions To Successors In Interest Defendants Prevailing Against Action Sounding In Tort And Contract

Cases: Prevailing Party

As They Were Entitled, Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1021, Original Parties To The Contract Entered Into A Fee Arrangement Obligating Payment Of Fees To The Prevailing Party Whether The Underlying Litigation Sounded In Tort Or Contract.             In Cook v. Trebino, Case Nos. H047830/H048498 (6th Dist., May 10, 2022) (unpublished), two sisters each

Prevailing Party, Reasonableness of Fees, Section 1717: Section 1717 Fees Award Of About $40,000 Affirmed For Plaintiff Who Had Fraud Claim Dismissed By Trial Court And Received Only A Portion Of Requested Damages After Bench Trial

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

A One-Sided Fees Provision Entitled Plaintiff To Reciprocal Prevailing Party Fees Under Section 1717, And A Trial Court’s Determination As To Reasonableness Of Fees Will Not Be Disturbed Absent A Showing That The Trial Court Is Clearly Wrong.             In Hernandez v. Thottam, Case No. B306547 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 10, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff

Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 1717, Section 998: Fifth District Deals With Various Prevailing Party Issues For Costs And Fees Award To Litigants Who Both Claimed To Have Prevailed

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Plaintiff Winning Some Money Entitled To Routine Costs, But Defense Entitled To Prevailing Party Fees And Some Other Routine Costs Relating To Fee And Expert Witness Work, Some Other CCP § 998.             Mike Murphy’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Fineline Industries, Inc., Case No. F080503 (5th Dist. Apr. 13, 2022) (unpublished) is a good opinion to

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Despite Some Partial Appellate Issue Reversals, Plaintiff Water Authority Prevailed Under A Contractual Fees Clause So As To Be Entitled To Fees And Costs For Achieving Litigation Success On Important Water Rate Issues

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing On “Water Rates Not Set Pursuant To Law” Issue Drove The Conclusion.             Without going into a detailed discussion of the prolonged dispute between the parties, San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California, Case No. A162168 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 17, 2022) (unpublished) shows that a “prevailing party”

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Attorneys’ Fees Award To Prevailing Plaintiff Upheld On Appeal Despite Invalidation Of Contract Between The Parties Due To Defendants’ Fraud.

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiff’s Action Was “On The Contract” For Purposes Of Civ. Code § 1717, And Fees Provision In Parties’ Contract Was So Broad That It Allowed Award Of Fees To Prevailing Party Whether Action Was Based In Tort Or In Contract.             In Song v. Creative Global Investment, Case Nos. B299422/B301697/B304884 (2d Dist., Div. 2 February

Scroll to Top