Fees Were Incurred Defending Lawsuit, Not In Foreclosing, And Plaintiff Failed To Develop Legal Argument Analyzing The Language Of Civil Code §§ 2924c and 2924d On A Claim He Made To The 1/2 DCA That Might Have Had Some Teeth. In Ratliff v. Trojan Capital Investments, Case No. A155189 (1st Dist., Div. 2 […]
2/3 DCA Did Not Reach The Merits Of Plaintiff’s Argument Against The Fees Award As The Award Necessarily Fell With Reversal Of The Judgment Shell Oil v. Barclay Hollander, Case No. B289505 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 5, 2020) (unpublished), involves a hotly contested action brought by Shell Oil seeking indemnification for environmental
Non-Local Counsel Rates Of A Higher Nature Approved Because No Authorities Showed That They Could Not Be Imposed Under Section 1717, Given Lower Fees Were Used Anyway. In Patterson Frozen Foods, Inc. v. California Valley Land Co., Case No. H047357 (6th Dist. May 28, 2020) (unpublished), one group of defendants who were alleged to
Defendant Moved Under Civil Code Section 1717 Claiming Entitlement To Fees Pursuant To A Settlement Agreement She Unsuccessfully Sought To Enforce. In Carmody v. Mayne, Case No. D076197 (4th Dist., Div. 1 March 30, 2020) (unpublished) Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral agreement to jointly purchase a single family home as an
Defendant’s Limited Appellate Court Win Before Did Not Mean He Prevailed—There Can Only Be One! Defendant lost an arbitration to plaintiffs who were declared prevailing parties under a contract by the arbitrator. Plaintiffs moved for recovery of contractual attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717, a request granted by the trial court but then
Defendants/Cross-Complainants Were Entitled To Statutory Section 1021.9 Fees After Prevailing On Trespassing Claims. In Kelly v. Gregory House, Case Nos. A153735 and A153184 (1st Dist., Div. 1 March 23, 2020) (unpublished), Defendants/Cross-Complainants own and operate a 40-acre organic farm, and had leased 35 additional acres from an adjacent neighbor in order to expand
Defendants Will Be Entitled To Substantial Fees/Costs On Remand, Not To Mention An Attempt To Garner Even More Fees. This next case is a very substantial reverse of fortune on appeal. So, that takes us to posting on Abregov v. Lawrence, Case No. G056866 (Abregov II) (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 19, 2020) (unpublished).
The Trial Court Properly Awarded The Fees Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1717 Based On Provisions In The Escrow Agreement Drafted By Attorney/Law Firm Even Though That Agreement Was Determined By The Trial Court To Be Invalid. The 2/8 DCA described this next case as being “prompted by a sordid chain of events,”
Balance Of Unpaid Fees And Costs Were $31,147.17 When Former Client Stopped Making Agreed-Upon Monthly Installment Payments Of $200. In Delisi v. Wagner, Case Nos. D074728 and D075506 (4th Dist., Div. 1 January 27, 2020) (unpublished), an attorney sued his former client for unpaid fees and costs when Former Client stopped making monthly
Trial Judge’s Denial Of Fees Was Error, But He Protectively Decided Only 10% Of Winner’s Claimed Fees Were Reasonable—With The Appellate Court Modifying The Judgment To Award This Amount! This next one is interesting to show how trial judges can “protectively” express what attorney’s fees should be even though denying the request. By doing
