Cases: Section 1717

POOF!, Section 1717: Because Plaintiff’s Declaratory Relief Action Was Moot, The Ensuing $165,000 Fee Award Under Section 1717 Went POOF! As A Matter Of Law

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

Lower Court Should Have Dismissed The Case, Not Enter Judgment In Plaintiff’s Favor. In Currency Corp. v. The Pullman Group LLC, Case Nos. B340592 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), a long-running battle involving enforceability of a contract assigning royalties to defendants, the lower court entered a declaratory relief judgment in […]

Arbitration, Section 1717: Where Arbitration Respondent Won A Dismissal Of An Arbitration Award Based On Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Respondent Was Not Entitled To Fees But Was Entitled To Routine Costs

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 1717

Fee Issues Depended On Further Actions.                In O’Leary v. Jones III, Case No. D085327 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 24, 2026) (published), the Court of Appeal confirmed a denial of attorney’s fees to an arbitration respondent, who was never joined in a court action before the matter was ordered to arbitration such that the

Bankruptcy, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: Non-Debtor And Debtor Were Not Subject To The Automatic Stay Where A Non-Debtor Was Involved And Debtor Was The Only Prosecuting The Case With An Adverse Fee Award

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Appellate Court Did Remind Counsel They Need To Notify Courts About Bankruptcy Filings Which Might Implicate Whether The Stay Is In Place. Navellier v. Putnam, Case No. A172077 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 2, 2026 unpublished; published on Feb. 23, 2026; posted on Feb. 24, 2026) [bankruptcy discussion published; fee award entitlement and lodestar analysis

Section 1717: Settlement Agreement With Fees Clause, Incorporated Into A Subsequent Judgment, Does Allow For Fee Recovery

Cases: Section 1717

Fifth District So Holds In A Contentious Matter. The Fifth District, in Wash v. Wash, Case Nos. F084442/F084443 (5th Dist. Feb. 23,, 2026) (unpublished), confirmed that a contractual fees clause in a settlement agreement, when properly incorporated into a subsequent judgment, can give rise to a fee recovery for a prevailing party under Civil Code

Construction, Nonsignatories, Section 1717: $108,501.40 Fee Award Against Cross-Complainants Who Voluntarily Dismissed Their Cross-Complaint Is Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Construction, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

Santisas, Unilateral Fee-Shifting, And Section 1717 Principles Led To The Reversal. Cross-complainants voluntarily dismissed their cross-complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, disgorgement, Business and Professions Code section 7160 fraudulent inducement to enter a contract, and unjust enrichment as against two individual cross-defendants alleged to be

Section 1717: Where Plaintiff Pled Claims Based On Operating Agreements With Contractual Fee Clauses, It Did Not Matter If They Had Tort Origins

Cases: Section 1717

The Dismissed Claims Were “On The Contract” Under Civil Code Section 1717. We think that sometimes litigants and practitioners do not appreciate that Civil Code section 1717’s definition of “on the contract” is liberally construed, meaning that even tort claims based on contractual documents frequently will give rise to fee exposure.  JAJ3, LLC v. Bren,

Allocation, Fees On Fees, Homeowner Associations, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: Defendant Homeowners Prevailing On Deck/Gazebo Construction Dispute Were Properly Awarded A Total Of $615,118.37 In Fees And Costs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fees on Fees, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

CC&R And Nuisance Claims Were Intertwined, So No Apportionment Required, And Fee Excessive Claims Were Not Supported By Record Citations. Finley v. Gantz, Case No. D084145 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 6, 2026) (unpublished) reinforces a message we have refrained in the past: homeowner disputes can be expensive for the losing side, which will allow

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Where A Broad Contractual Fees Clause Governed Any Dispute Between The Parties, Fees For Prevailing On A Successful Forum Selection Motion in California Gave Rise To Fees Under CCP §§ 1021, 1032, And 1033.5

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717 Did Not Give Rise To Fees Based Upon DisputeSuite Opinion. This opinion highlights the importance of wording in a fees clause.  Broader language, such as “the prevailing party in any dispute or proceeding arising hereunder shall be entitled to recovery its costs and expenses incurred therein (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses),” can

Landlord/Tenant, Section 1717: Where Tenants Prevailed Against Landlord’s Cross-Claim Alleging A Contractual Breach Claim, Tenants Were Entitled To Reasonable Fees

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

Denial Of Fees Was Improper, Because Tenants Showed The Written Lease With A Fees Clause Was Inapplicable. In Hernandez v. Kocsis, Case No. G064238 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 4, 2026) (unpublished), authored by Justice Sanchez, the 4/3 DCA reversed a denial of attorney’s fees requested by plaintiffs/tenants.  The case involved a negligence/premises liability case

Section 1717: Illegal Contract, Void From The Start, Did Not Allow Plaintiff Prevailing Solely On a Negligent Misrepresentation Claim To Garner Fees

Cases: Section 1717

Lower Court Determined Both Parties “In Pari Delicto,” So No Fees Were Warranted. The Fourth District, Division Three, in S&S Engineering and Construction v. Ashby Enterprises, LLC, Case No. G062701 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2026) (unpublished), decided that a lower court’s denial of fees to a plaintiff winning on one negligent misrepresentation claim

Scroll to Top