Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing Party/Section 1717:  Defendant Beating Primary Rescission/Restitution Claim Did Prevail For Purposes Of Section 1717 Despite Losing Cross-Claims

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

    Dispute Arose Over Filming Rights For Jimi Hendrix’s 1969 Performance At London’s Royal Albert Hall.   Photograph of Jimi Hendrix taken in Sweden.  May 24, 1967.  Wikipedia.                  Although unpublished, Experience Hendrix, LLC v. The Last Experience, Case No. B268414 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 8, 2017) (unpublished) takes us down […]

Section 1717:  Prevailing Plaintiff’s Action To Rescind Car Contract Based On Fraud Was “On The Contract” Under Section 1717

Cases: Section 1717

  $80,806.50 Fee Award Affirmed Where $11,642.10 Compensatory Damages And Cancellation Of Car Loan Was The End Result.                Replica of first car made and sold by Toyota:  the 1936 Toyota Standard Sedan AA.  Photo:  Bertel Schmitt. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.             In Valencia v. Hooman Toyota of

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: California Supreme Court Affirms That Party Losing Forum Selection Clause Transfer, But Refiling In Different Jurisdiction, Is Not Subject To 1717 Fee Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Refiling The Case In A Different Jurisdiction Was The Key Distinction.       In DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com, Case No. S226652 (Cal. Supreme Court Apr. 6, 2017) (published), our state supreme court faced the issue of whether fee recovery under Civil Code section 1717 was properly denied against a litigant obtaining a dismissal of an

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: $1.79 Million Fee Award To Prevailing Defendants Was Excised As A Matter Of Law From Judgment Based On Lack Of Fee Entitlement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Plaintiff Sued On An Oral Agreement Which Was Not Within The Scope Of Stock Purchase Agreement Fee Clause Relied On By The Defense.        Fee entitlement is a basic issue, often tethered to whether a fees clause in a written contract covers the claims at issue in a complaint or cross-complaint. If it

Allocation/Costs/Section 1717: Plaintiff Attempting To Dismiss Lawsuit Against Lenders Without Prejudice Subjected To Substantial 1717 Fee Exposure To The Tune Of $526,393 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 1717

  Plaintiff Also Hit With Some Costs, But Some Non-Statutory And Discretionary Costs Were Stricken.      Plaintiff borrowers brought a multi-count contractual/tort/statutory claim-based suit against construction loan participants, ultimately attempting to dismiss the action without prejudice during trial. The trial judge determined the dismissal was not authorized and set it aside as void, further granting

Fee Clause Interpretation, Homeowner Associations, Section 1717: Large Fee Recovery To Prevailing Defendants In Common Interest Development Parking Space Dispute With Other Homeowners Reversed

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

  Only Time Finite Fees On Trespass Claim Recoverable Under HOA Fee-Shifting Statute.      In Hussein v. Driver, Case Nos. A144786/A145655 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 27, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiffs and defendants, homeowners in a common interest development as well as the parents of defendants, were drawn into a parking space dispute where slander of

Section 1717: Bank’s Assignee On Open Book Account Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under Sections 1717 Or Section 1717.5(c)

Cases: Section 1717

  No Written Contract—No 1717 Fees; Banks And Assignees—No Go Under 1717(c).      In Professional Collection Consultants v. Brown, Case No. B270128 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 17, 2017) (unpublished), bank’s assignee (collection consultants) requested the trial judge to award it $148,792 in contractual attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 or $800 in statutory

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717, Allocation: Trial Court Erred In Awarding All Defense Fees Against Voluntarily Dismissing Plaintiff Under Santisas, Requiring Remand And Allocation

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

However, Prevailing Defense Was Entitled To Fees For Tort Claim Work Given Breadth Of Contractual Fees Clause.     A trial judge in Khan v. Shim, Case No. H041608 (6th Dist. Dec. 29, 2016) (published) granted the prevailing defense all fees for defensive work incurred in defending against a complaint containing both contractual and tort claims following

Allocation/Section 1717: Lower Court Erred In Denying Fees To Prevailing Defendant Under Section 1717 Based On “Unity Of Interest” Principle Applicable To Other Unsuccessful Defendants

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  However, Apportionment Was Required On Remand—Consideration Of Many Factors.     In Bank of Southern California, N.A. v. D&D Goryoka, Inc., Case No. D069767 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 29, 2016) (unpublished), defendant/cross-complainant was denied a prevailing party fee request as against plaintiff/cross-defendant Bank to the tune of a $908,171.25 request (later reduced to $795,753). 

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: $152,791.50 Fee Award To Prevailing Defendants, Even Though One Of The Defendants Also Only Won One Out Of Four Cross-Claims, Sustained On Appeal.

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Prevailing Party Determination Was A Discretionary One For Lower Court.     In Enayat v. Missaghi, Case No. B260861 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 17, 2016) (unpublished), defendants won a “waste” lease dispute against a plaintiff alleging two tort claims, and one of the defendants also won on a slander cross-claim (resulting in $1 nominal

Scroll to Top