Cases: Section 1717

Civil Rights/Section 1717 Two-Fer: Losing Plaintiff Hit With Substantial Fee Award In FEHA Case And Contractual Fee Award Reversed Due To No Contract With A Fees Clause

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Section 1717

  Gonzalez v. The Los Angeles Lakers, Case No. B265823 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 10, 2016) (Unpublished)—Civil Rights      Nothing remarkable in this one, except that plaintiff lost a FEHA case and the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s discretionary award of fees because it deemed the case frivolous/unreasonable in nature. Plaintiff was socked […]

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: There Can Be Two Prevailing Parties For Fee Recovery Purposes

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

One Can Recover Under Section 1717 And The Other Side Can Recover Based On Fees Clause Breadth Under Civil Code Section 1021.          Stadium Promenade, LLC v. Auld Irisher, Orange, LLC, Case No. G051513 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 15, 2016) (unpublished) is a case which illustrates that both sides in a case can

Fee Clause Interpretation, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: $239K Fee Recovery Under Broad Contractual Fees Clause Sustained, Except For $4.4K Modification Beyond Prevailing Party’s Request Which Was Deleted On Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  Technical Challenges To Fee Award Did Not Work.     In Vilela v. Rodriguez, Case No. B262442 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 22, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a case against various defendants on both torts and a declaratory relief count, with a fees clause in a subscription agreement broadly covering fees “in defending against an

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Bank Winning $65 Million Verdict Not Entitled To Prevailing Party Fees Against Borrower

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Bank Wanted To Obtain Custodial Deposit Account Priority On Injunctive Claim, But Did Not Achieve Main Objective By Losing Lien Priority Issue.     Courts will focus on who pragmatically “won” as far as determining the prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717.  The next case well illustrates this principle.     In Wells Fargo Bank,

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: $16,880 Fee Recovery Under Lease Dispute Reversed Because Tortious Fraud Was Not “On The Contract”

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Neither Section 1717 Nor CCP § 1021 Permitted Fee Recovery.       In Ruballos v. Ruballos, Case No. B268343 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 26, 2016) (unpublished), a lease non-signatory prevailed in a nasty lease dispute, based on a fraud-based controversy.  The lower court awarded $16,880 in attorney’s fees based on a contractual fees clause.

Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Section 998, Section 1717: Neither Borrower Winning $523.14 Nor Lender With Beating 998 Offers Were Deemed Prevailing Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  Both Went Away Unhappy, We Assume.     In Russo v. Bank of America, Case No. D067623 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 17, 2016) (unpublished), borrower and lender won some sides of claims in an impound dispute, although plaintiff borrower eventually won $523.14 based on a contract with a fees clause after seeking $795,000 plus

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Another Reversal Of Fortune—Rehearing Granted Where Prevailing Plaintiff Now Gets Return Of $4.2 Million Fee Recovery

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

  Earlier, The Fee Recovery Went POOF!, But Restored After A Rehearing.   President Grant at his cottage by the sea.  c1872.  Library of Congress.     We have posted before in our February 21, 2016 post on U.S. Grant Hotel Ventures, LLC v. American Property Management Corp., a Fourth District, Division 1 appeal where each

Deadlines/Section 1717: 4/1 DCA Follows Kaufman v. Diskeeper Corp., Agreeing Only Fee Motion Necessary For Purposes Of Recovering Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Section 1717

    Followed In Unpublished Opinion Issued On April 26, 2016.        On August 21, 2014, we first posted on Kaufman v. Diskeeper Corp., 229 Cal.App.4th 1, 8-9 (2014), which held that a costs memorandum did not have to be filed as a condition precedent for purposes of a litigant being able to seek

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Seller Prevailing Under Purchase/Sale Agreement Fee Clause Entitled To $95,707 Fee Recovery Plus Some Routine Costs

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Multiple Challenges By Losing Buyer Rejected By 2/6 DCA.      Real estate seller in Weinstock Porter Development, LLC v. Teixeira Farms, Inc., Case No. B253455 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 25, 2016) (unpublished) defeated buyer’s rescission claim based on environmental contamination where the record showed the parties entered into a release of claims because

Mediation/Section 1717: Defendants Improperly Denied Fees For Failing To Satisfy So-Called “Binding Mediation” Condition Precedent In Fee Clause

Cases: Mediation, Cases: Section 1717

  Also, Two Defendants Entitled To Fee Recovery Based On Alter Ego Allegations And Plaintiff’s Failure To Ever Dismiss/Abandon The Theory.      In Kern Health Systems v. Allied Mgt. Group Special Investigation Unit, Inc., Case No. B258326 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 25, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff lost contractual and tort claims after a jury trial

Scroll to Top