Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717: Winning Homeowner Were Third Party Beneficiaries Of Contractor-Subcontractor Agreement, Justifying Recovery Of Over $566,000 In Contractual Fees Against Stucco Subcontractor

Cases: Section 1717

  However, Subcontractor Not Entitled To Fee Recovery From Homeowners Dismissing Assigned Contractor Cross-Claims Based On Voluntary Dismissal Of Contractually-Based Claims After Presentation Of Trial Evidence.      In Mulitz v. L.A. Stucco, Inc., Case Nos. B260314/B262387 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 7, 2016) (unpublished), homeowners sued both contractor and stucco subcontractor for a defective home […]

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Refusal To Award Attorney’s Fees Reversed Because 1717 Prevailing Party Determination Is Confined To Success On Contractual Causes Of Action

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Considering Mixed Results On Noncontractual Claims Was Error.     Justice Thompson, author of a 3-0 panel opinion in Sadr v. Sabet, Case No. G050493 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 5, 2016) (unpublished), provides us with an important nuance in cases where attorney’s fees awards are governed by Civil Code section 1717:  the prevailing party

Bankruptcy/Section 1717/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Debtor’s Fees In Nondischargeability Bankruptcy Action Were Not Recoverable Under California Civil Code Section 1717 Or ERISA Discretionary Fee-Shifting Statute

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Fee Activities Were Not Within the Purview Of Either Statute.     Debtor/employer eventually “defensed” a bankruptcy nondischargeability action brought by certain employees arguing employer was an ERISA fiduciary for purposes of the “fiduciary” exception to bankruptcy discharge, a determination found to not legally be sustainable under a prior Ninth Circuit opinion (meaning employer was

Section 1717: Nonprevailing Complainant Not Liable For Fee Exposure Where Party Abandoned Contractual Claim Potentially Giving Rise To Fees Through Filing Of Amended Cross-Complaint

Cases: Section 1717

  Filing Amended Cross-Complaint Deleting Contract Cross-Claim Was Tantamount To A “Dismissal.”     Although the procedural context was somewhat sui generis, a cross-complainant’s abandonment of a contract claim by filing an amended cross-complaint was tantamount to a dismissal so that no Civil Code section 1717 fees were recoverable, per the Santisas [one of our Leading

Section 1717: $487,329 Attorney’s Fees Award Affirmed Based On Record Failure And Upon One Fees Clause Showing Entitlement

Cases: Section 1717

  Plaintiffs Awarded Fees Had Compensatory Damages Of $252,000 And $558,000 After Factoring In Reversed Prejudgment Interest Awards.     Attorney’s fees awards do not have to be proportionate under Civil Code section 1717.  Park v. Nazari, Case No. B253685 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 2, 2016) (unpublished) is an apt illustration of this principle.    

Intellectual Property, Section 998, Section 1717: Prevailing Defendants Properly Denied Fee Recovery, But Improperly Denied Expert Witness Fees

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  No Need to Provide Declarations From Expert Witness Fee In Support Of Expense Request Under CCP § 998.      What happened in Nations Title Co. of Calif. v. Security Union Title Ins. Co, Case Nos. B250490/B253840 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 25, 2016) (unpublished), was that defendants won a jury verdict on a breach

Appellate Fees/Section 1717: Appellant’s Failure To Address Fees/Costs Award Waived Any Challenge, Losing Merits Arguments On Appeal As Well

Cases: Section 1717

  Respondents Entitled To Appellate Fees For Prevailing Again.      In Martin v. Park Sierra Apts., Case Nos. B242464/B244184 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 22, 2016) (unpublished), defendants won a case involving a lease agreement with a fees clause. Plaintiff appealed the merits decision and substantial fees/costs award of $142,853.25. Both determinations were affirmed on

Retainer Agreement/Section 1717: Unsigned Retainer Agreement, With Explanation, Justified Fee Recovery By Attorney Under Civil Code Section 1717 Based Upon Dismissal Of Legal Malpractice Tort Claims

Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

  Fee Clause Was Broad Enough To Allow For Recovery Of Fees, With Destruction Of Signed Fee Agreement By Terminated Attorney Not Precluding Recovery.      Stolz v. Fleischner, Case No. E062781 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 6, 2016) (unpublished) is a situation where a terminated attorney won a fee recovery of $27,120 (out of a

Section 1717/Standard of Review: Elements Of Contractual Fee Recovery Nicely Set Forth In Unpublished Decision

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Standard of Review

  4/3 DCA Does It Succinctly And Well.     Presiding Justice O’Leary, in a 3-0 unpublished decision by the Fourth District, Division 3, affirmed a $76,890 contractual fee award against a plaintiff unsuccessfully attempting to unwind a foreclosure sale in Melgar v. Deutsche Bank National Trust, Case No. G051225 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 4,

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Voluntarily Dismissed Defendant On Tort Claims Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Because It Was A Nonsignatory Not Falling Into Important Exceptions

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Fee Request For $928,791.25 Never Happened As An Award.     One must be careful on how one is positioned as far as status in attorney’s fees disputes, because nonsignatories must push the right “buttons” or they risk losing fees, which happened to the defendant/appellant in Seaport Village Ltd. v. Terramar Retail Centers, Case No.

Scroll to Top