Cases: Section 1717

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Plaintiff Nonparty Manager To An LLC Operating Agreement Not Subject To Attorney’s Fees When Losing Tort Claims Against An LLC Member

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Even though Plaintiff Was A Suspended Entity, Retroactive Revival Preserved Ability To Oppose Fees Motion, Which Could Still Not Be Granted If No Fee Entitlement.            In 9450 Topanga Properties, LLC v. Alpine Consultants, LLC, Case No. B293178 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 23, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff manager, not a party to an LLC Operating

Homeowner Associations, Section 1717: $220,000 Fee Award To HOA Under CC&Rs Fees Clause Was Proper

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiff’s Unsuccessful Action Was Founded On CC&Rs Rights, Not Just Solely Sounding In Tort; HOA; Directors Had Sought $322,840 In Fees.             HOA and HOA directors were awarded $220,000 in attorney’s fees against an unsuccessful plaintiff bringing a suit to challenge HOA’s policies and CC&Rs about parking and the permitting process, as well as enforcement

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Nonsignatory Prevailing Parties, Alleged To Be Alter Egos, Were Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under Contractual Fees Clause When They Beat The Alter Ego Allegations

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Reynolds Was Controlling, Not Blickman Turkus.             What happened in Kaddu, Inc. v. Gauze, Case No. H045090 (6th Dist. Nov. 27, 2019) (unpublished) is that a cross-complainant filed a contractually-based cross-complaint against nonsignatory cross-defendants where they were alleged to be alter egos of the primary cross-defendant.  Cross-complainant sought attorney’s fees, in addition to damages, based

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Collections Fees/Costs Provision In A Preprinted Form Which Was Incorporated In The Parties’ Bargain Provided Fee Entitlement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Fees Are Costs, And Do Not Have To Be Pled/Proven Unless In A Third Party Tort or Brandt Situation.             Ya know, fee entitlement under a contractual fees clause can be based on very simple language set forth in a preprinted form.  In Ozuna Electric Co., Inc. v. Integrated Process Control Engineering, Inc., Case No.

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Losing Plaintiffs’ Strained Interpretation of Prevailing Party Language In Fees Clause Did Not Disturb Trial Judge’s Award Of Fees And Costs To Prevailing Defendants

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

$40,202 Was The Fees/Costs Award In Easement Dispute, Reduced From The Requested $79,675 In Fees.             Defendants/cross-complainants in an easement dispute won on every issue except for cross-complainants” claim that plaintiffs owed them money for utilities, garnering $1,350 for damages for injury to their livestock.  Even though there was no unqualified winner, the trial court

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Base Dispute Over $515 Ballooned Into Dispute Over $50,858.50 Fee Award In Favor Of Prevailing Parties, One A Nonsignatory To An Invoice

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Can’t Make It Up, With A Nonsignatory Being Entitled to Fees Had The Other Side Won Against The Nonsignatory.             You really cannot make up some of the decisions we post on.  Ehiemenonye v. Escobar, Case No. B285915 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 23, 2019) (unpublished) clearly falls in this category.             As unbelievable as

Assignment, POOF!, Section 1717: Plaintiff’s $169,534.60 Fees Award Goes POOF! On Appeal

Cases: Assignment, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

Although The Dispute Concerned Contractual Rights, The Contractual Attorney Fees Provision Relied Upon In Issuing Award Did Not Apply Because There Was No Breach Of Contract.             In McAlister Investments, Inc. v. Thomas, Case No. G056330 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 30, 2019) (unpublished), neighboring land owners got into a dispute pertaining to a

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717, Settlement: Reasonable Discretion Exercised In Awarding Defendant Only 20% Of Requested $177,712 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

The Legal Principles Of Civil Code Section 1717 and Santisas Governed.             Both parties appealed the fee results in Rusnak/South Bay v. Glukel Group, Case No. B286513 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2019) involving a dispute between landlord and tenant – with tenant plaintiff advancing contract and tort claims against landlord.         

Sanctions, Section 1717: Failure To Provide Safe Harbor Notice And Combining 1717 Fee Request With Sanctions Motion Rendered $176,869 Award Infirm

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 1717

Prelitigation Conduct Does Not Justify 128.5 Sanctions Award, But Combo Motion Also Justified The Result.             In Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Structured Asset Sales, LLC (Currency Corp.), Case Nos. B272418/B278379 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 30, 2019) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed a $176,869 CCP § 128.5 sanctions award against a client represented by co-contributor

Section 1717: Lack Of Contractual Relationship With A Fees Clause Doomed Cross-Defendant’s Recovery Of Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Section 1717

Cross-Defendant Sought, But Did Not Get, $352,790.50 In Fees.             Cardiodiagnostic Imaging Inc. (Cardio), whose president was Mr. Kay, sued two parties who eventually took over a commercial leased space when Cardio encountered business problems.  The two defendants denied that a business sale agreement had been reached with Cardio or Mr. Kay, but they brought

Scroll to Top