Case Demonstrates How Fee-Shifting Is A Major Consideration In Modern Day Litigation. City of Oakland, in Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 519, Case Nos. A169585 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 27, 2025), pet’n for review filed 8-6-2025, lost a ground lease termination case to […]
Costs Against Plaintiff Also Narrowed To Law Firm’s Work On An IIED Claim. What happened in Martin v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Case Nos. H050803 et al. (6th Dist. July 25, 2025) (unpublished) is that plaintiff brought a legal malpractice suit against two individual attorneys and their law firm, although plaintiff was non-suited
Inquiry Is Factually Based; At The End, Other Spouse Did Not Show That There Was A True Attorney-Client Independent Representation. We have posted often on Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995), which held that lawyers appearing in pro per to litigate their own claims cannot recover prevailing party contractual claims under Civil Code
Sellers Wanted Over $2.5 Million—Did Not Happen, Based On Lower Court’s Apportionment Which Was Found Appropriate. Where different contracts are involved and no success/limited success is involved, California law gives deference to a lower court to fashion a reasonable award and even apportion fees based on the facts. That is what occurred in Life
Prevailing Party Determination Was Discretionary, With The Lower Court Not Abusing Its Discretion. Under Civil Code section 1717, if no side gets an unqualified win, a lower court determines the prevailing party on the contract by comparing the relief awarded on claims with the parties’ claim demands and their litigation objectives as well as
Case Explores Fee Clause Interpretation, An Award Of Fees To An Unlicensed Associate Supervised By A California Attorney, And An Award Of Expert Witness Costs Which Were Not Pled Or Proven As Damages. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. 250 Fourth Development LP, Case No. A169470 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 13, 2025) (unpublished) is
Appellate Court Did Discuss When The Action Is Contract Versus Tort, But The Case Did Not Have Tort Holdover Or Ouster Issues. In an unlawful detainer case, the nature of the case may determine whether a landlord’s voluntarily dismissal allows the tenant an entitlement to attorney’s fees, which invokes the Santisas principle. (See Our
$58,223 Was The Fee Award, With A Credit For Smaller CCP § 128.7 Sanctions. In ATM Professional, Inc. v. Repiping.com, Inc., Case No. B331046 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 26, 2025) (unpublished), alter ego defendants obtained a dismissal (based on failure to name an indispensable party, the contract signatory) in a declaratory relief complaint
Tenant Proved There Was A Defective 3 Day Notice For Nonpayment, Because Tenant Did Not Contest It Was Claiming Occupancy Of Unleased Areas–$122,855 Was The Fee Award. Big Washington LLC v. Superdudes, LLC, Case No. F086483 (5th Dist. Dec. 20, 2024) (unpublished) shows how highly contested unlawful detainer actions can produce a
Trope Generally Barred Fees, Plus Husband Could Not Show His Financial Interest Allowing For CCP § 1021.5 Fees. In Honchariw v. FJM Private Mortgage Fund, LLC, Case No. A169447 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 20, 2024) (unpublished), husband represented himself and his wife, although he had no evidence of an attorney-client relationship with his
