Cases: Section 1717

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Post-Arbitration Fee Request Denied Because Contract For Which Entitlement Sought Was Never Submitted For Judicial Review

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Myriads Of Other Bases For Fee Entitlement, First Introduced On Appeal, Rejected.             If you are going to seek fee recovery, make sure you put forth all of your bases for fee entitlement at the trial court level. The fee claimant in Glass v. Veros Credit, LLC, Case No. G055257 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April

Homeowner Associations, Private Attorney General, Section 1717: Defendant Homeowners Winning A Tree Dispute With Another Homeowner Neighbor Rightfully Denied Attorney’s Fees Under CC&Rs, Civil Code Section 1717, And Private Attorney General Statute

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 1717

However, A Dissenting Justice Would Have Found Fee Entitlement Under CC&Rs And Section 1717.            The next case, Shah v. Ross, Case No. B286783 (2d Dist., Div. 5 April 25, 2019) (unpublished), involved a situation where defendants/homeowner neighbors won a tree dispute initiated by fellow plaintiff homeowner. Defendants then sought fees under a CC&Rs fees clause,

Indemnity, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court Erred In Denying Contractual Fees To Owner And General Contractor’s Surety Such That A Remand Was Required—There Was A Fees Clause, Not Just An Indemnity Provision

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

However, Appellate Court Acknowledged That Results Were Decidedly Mixed, But Any Prevailing Party Determination Was To Be Made By Lower Court             Driving multiple trips to the appellate court were the parties’ claims for attorney’s fees, something we have seen often and one of the things which inspired this blog.             In John Russo Industrial

Section 1717: Rescission Of A Retail Installment Auto Sales Contract Did Trigger Appellate Fee Recovery Under Civil Code Section 1717 For Earlier Appeal Win By Plaintiff

Cases: Section 1717

Appellate Court Did Not Have To Address Fee Entitlement Under The Automobile Sales Finance Act.            This next case demonstrates how appellate courts do not have to address all fee entitlement issues advanced by a prevailing party if one fee entitlement basis can support fee recovery.             Plaintiff won an earlier appeal by which the superior

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: In UCC Case, Plaintiff Only Winning Installation Cost Recovery Rather Than Defective System Recovery Against Contractual Recovery Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Defendant Gravitated More On The “Winning Side,” Although Mixed Bag For Everyone.            This next case takes us back to law school for co-contributor Mike. He had a great Uniform Commercial Code professor in law school (E. Hunter Taylor, who is a professor emeritus at Rutgers-Camden Law School but is still practicing law in New Jersey),

Section 1717: Nominal Defendant Corporation Improperly Assessed With Substantial Attorney’s Fees And Costs In Meritless Derivative Action

Cases: Section 1717

4/3 DCA Amended Judgment To Reflect Unsuccessful Shareholder Liable For Fees And Costs Under Contractual Fees Clause; Corporation Dodged $1,357,410 Fee Award And $34,358.90 In Costs.             Here is another case where there was a complete change in fortune on appeal for a corporation sued as a nominal defendant in a derivative action.             In

Construction, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: 4/1 DCA Affirms That Subcontractor Was Not Prevailing Party Because Its Post-Litigation Deposit Near The End Of The Litigation Was Not A Proper Tender Under Civil Code Section 1717(b)(2)

Cases: Construction, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Very Elaborate Discussion Of “Tender” Under Section 1717(b)(2), Which Appellant Did Not Meet.             D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co., Inc. v. Milgard Mfg. Co., Inc., Case No. D074889 (4th Dist., Div. 1 March 29, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting case which interpreted the nature of Civil Code section 1717(b)(2). That provision says that where

Allocation, Section 1717, Reasonableness Of Fees: 4/3 DCA Affirms Contractual Fee Award To Prevailing Asserted Alter Ego Defendants To The Tune Of $203,940

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

No Apportionment Required Because Alter Ego Claims Were Involved On Both Causes Of Action; Assertion That Hourly Rates Should Be Lower Did Not Rebut Fee Claimant’s Attorney’s Declaration.             In Alvarado v. Freedman, Case No. G055918 (4th Dist., Div. 3 March 28, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff sued defendants for loan repayment, based on a loan agreement

Costs, Fee Clause Interpretation, Homeowner Associations, Section 1717: Trial Court Properly Denied Fee Recovery To Prevailing Defendants Under Davis-Stirling Act Or Civil Code Section 1717 And Properly Struck The Costs Memorandum

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Section 1717

Action Was Based On Tort, Not CC&Rs; Fee Clause Did Not Reach Tort Claims Under Section 1717; And Defendants Failed To Apportion Costs As Between Themselves.             In the fee area, you must have a solid fee entitlement basis and you usually have to apportion costs where there are several prevailing defendants rather than claim

Section 1717: Prevailing Defendant, Not A Party To A Fees Clause But Beating Alter Ego Allegations, Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Because He Was Sued For Fraud

Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717 Allows For Recovery “On A Contract,” Not For Fraud.             An individual defendant in High Sierra Properties, Inc. v. Mitchell, Case No. B280201 (2d Dist., Div. 7 March 25, 2019) (unpublished) was feeling pretty good after winning a nonsuit in which he was sued for fraud, both individually and as an alter ego

Scroll to Top