Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: District Prevailing In Percentage Lease Dispute Under Contractual Leases Was Properly Awarded $137,400 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Contractual Ambiguity Challenges Did Not Resonate, Because Not Raised Below. In Ventura Harbor Restaurant Associates, Inc. v. Ventura Port Dist., Case No. B344145 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 9, 2026) (certified for publication, after being filed on June 15, 2026 as an unpublished opinion), the appellate court affirmed a $137,400 contractual attorney’s fees award under […]

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717:  Attorney’s Fees Award In Favor Of Non-Signatory, Alter Ego Targets Was Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

On Remand, Only Contract Claim Work Could be Awarded, Not On Non-Contract Claims—Lower Court Vested With Discretion To Allocate On Remand. McCain v. Edwards, Case No. C101256 (3d Dist. May 14, 2026) (unpublished) is a very contested case where, eventually, some non-signatory, alter ego targets evaded exposure where the contract between the predicate signatory and

Section 1717: Court Of Appeal Affirms Fee Award, Confirming That A Notice Of Motion For An Attorney’s Fee Request Does Not Have To Specifically Recite The Contract Which Was A Predicate For The Fee Motion

Cases: Section 1717

General Reference To The Parties’ Contract Sufficed. Yellow Dog Holdings, LLC v. Regions Bank, Case No. G064613 (4th Dist., Div. 3) (May 12, 2026) (unpublished), authored by Justice Sanchez, did deal with a procedural issue we have seen frequently argued.  The notice of motion for attorney’s fees referenced the parties’ contract, but it did not

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 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 27, 2026) (unpublished), a long-running battle involving enforceability of a contract assigning royalties to defendants, the lower court entered a declaratory relief judgment in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,

Scroll to Top