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 Feb. 23,, 2026) (unpublished), confirmed that a contractual fees clause in a settlement agreement, when properly incorporated into a subsequent judgment, can give rise to a fee recovery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 […]
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
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,
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 Finley v. Gantz, Case No. D084145 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 6, 2026) (unpublished) reinforces a message we have refrained in the past: homeowner disputes can be expensive for the losing side, which will allow
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
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 In Hernandez v. Kocsis, Case No. G064238 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 4, 2026) (unpublished), authored by Justice Sanchez, the 4/3 DCA reversed a denial of attorney’s fees requested by plaintiffs/tenants.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
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in S&S Engineering and Construction v. Ashby Enterprises, LLC, Case No. G062701 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2026) (unpublished), decided that a lower court’s denial of fees to a plaintiff winning on one negligent misrepresentation claim
Case Drew Three Opinions, A Concurrence Finding 70% Defense Allocation For Tort Claims Was Reasonable, But With A Dissenting Justice Finding More Delineation Between Contract/Tort Claims Was In Order. Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) [our Leading Case #6] was substantively upfront and center in National Merchants Assn. v. Commercial Bank of California, Case
Opinion Held That A Prevailing Party In A Discrete Proceeding To Obtain A Replacement Arbitrator Is Entitled To Contractual Attorney’s Fees Award. On December 22, 2025, we posted on Barbanell v. Lodge, Case No. D081493 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 17, 2025), which was unpublished at the time. It held that a prevailing party in
Plus, Wife Also Represented By Husband Lawyer Had Commonly Held Interests, So Her Fees Were Barred Under Trope. As we come to the end of 2025, we have a published opinion on the Trope v. Katz,11 Cal.4th 274 (1995) prohibition [our Leading Case #12]. The case is Honchariw v. PFM CA REIT, LLC, Case No.
