Cases: Section 1717

Allocation, Section 1717: Appellate Court Affirms A Substantial Fee And Costs Award In A Mixed Contract/Tort Case Based On Santisas

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

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 […]

Section 1717: Fee Recovery By Self-Represented Husband Reversed As A Matter Of Law Under Trope Prohibition, With CCP § 1021 Characterization Being Inconsequential

Cases: Section 1717

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.

Arbitration, Section 1717: Prevailing Party Winning A Petition To Appoint An Arbitrator In A Discrete Action Under The Parties’ Contract Was Entitled To Recover $68,800 In Fees For Getting An Arbitrator Appointed

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 1717

Prematurity Arguments Were Rebuffed. In Barbanell v. Lodge, Case No. D084193 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 17, 2025) (unpublished), the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a longstanding water rights dispute, with the settlement agreement having an attorney’s fees clause allowing a prevailing party in a lawsuit arising out of the settlement to

Equity, Section 1717: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Losing Reformation Cross-Claim, Where A Contractual Fee Shifting Provision Was Involved, Properly Assessed With An Award Of $547,587 In Attorney’s Fees To Two Prevailing Cross-Complainants

Cases: Equity, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Reformation Cross-Claim Was “On The Contract,” Apportionment Was Unnecessary, And Awarding Against Cross-Defendant Only Was No Abuse Of Discretion. Modern civil litigation is an expensive, draining process, whether at the state or federal levels.  Where there is fee shifting at play, it becomes even more risky for litigants, as demonstrated by Favilli v. Tung, Case

Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 998, Section 1717:  Attorney’s Fees Properly Denied To Plaintiffs Where Neither Side Prevailed Even Though Both Sides Did Bring “On The Contract” Claims

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

However, Denial Of Costs Awards Were Reversed Based On Improper CCP § 998 Focus; Defendants Being The Costs Prevailing Parties When No One Won; And Errors In Adopting Across-The-Board Reductions For Jointly Represented Parties. Golunova v. Akhromtsev, Case Nos. A167542 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 20, 2025) (unpublished) involved dueling complaints by members

Section 1717: City Of Oakland Suffers A Fees/Costs Award Of Almost $6.9 Million In Total After Losing Ground Lease Termination Case Against Plaintiffs

Cases: Section 1717

Case Demonstrates How Fee-Shifting Is A Major Consideration In Modern Day Litigation.                City of Oakland, in Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 519, Case Nos. A169585 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 27, 2025), pet’n for review filed 8-6-2025, lost a ground lease termination case to

Costs, POOF!, Section 1717: Law Firm’s Attorney’s Fees Award Against Plaintiff Reversed As A Matter Of Law Based On Trope Prohibition

Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

Costs Against Plaintiff Also Narrowed To Law Firm’s Work On An IIED Claim.                What happened in Martin v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Case Nos. H050803 et al. (6th Dist. July 25, 2025) (unpublished) is that plaintiff brought a legal malpractice suit against two individual attorneys and their law firm, although plaintiff was non-suited

Section 1717: 4/1 DCA Decides That An Attorney-Spouse Representing His Other Spouse On A Claim Or Defense, Shared With Spouse, Is Not Automatically Disqualified From Recovering Fees Under Trope

Cases: Section 1717

Inquiry Is Factually Based; At The End, Other Spouse Did Not Show That There Was A True Attorney-Client Independent Representation.                We have posted often on Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995), which held that lawyers appearing in pro per to litigate their own claims cannot recover prevailing party contractual claims under Civil Code

Allocation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: In A Dispute With Dueling Claims Involving A Purchase Of A Senior Housing Facility, Sellers Properly Were Awarded $722,530.01 In Attorney’s Fees For Breach Of An Escrow Holdback Agreement

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Sellers Wanted Over $2.5 Million—Did Not Happen, Based On Lower Court’s Apportionment Which Was Found Appropriate.                Where different contracts are involved and no success/limited success is involved, California law gives deference to a lower court to fashion a reasonable award and even apportion fees based on the facts.  That is what occurred in Life

Scroll to Top