Guarantor of the Note Entitled to Fees, Too, Even Though Guaranty Had No Fees Clause. Sun v. Electro Medical Instrumentation Corp., Case No. G048547 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 27, 2014) (unpublished) was a situation where an obligor and a guarantor of a promissory note defensed a suing plaintiff based on the argument […]
Result Was “Mixed” For Plaintiffs, While Plaintiffs Did Not Eclipse Defense 998 Offer. The result in Smith v. Esmailzadeh, Case No. B239828 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 19, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates well our Mission Statement that "[a]ll too often attorney fees become the tail that wags the dog in litigation." Deane Gardenhome Assn.
Santisas Drove the Result in this One. In Berry v. Berry, Case No. D062914 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 18, 2014) (unpublished), one co-trustee/aligned other parties were not happy when a probate court denied their request for attorney’s fees under a settlement agreement fees clause after another co-trustee (a brother, of course) voluntarily
Plaintiff Did Achieve What He Wanted, So Reversal of Fortunes—He Prevailed! The appellate court in Zock v. Esparza, Case No. D062784 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished) reversed as a matter of law a lower court’s grant of fees against a plaintiff who actually achieved his main litigation results. Basically, plaintiff
“Losing Party” Not Entitled to Fee Under Most Contractual Fee Clauses, Muses Appellate Court. The fee claimant in Vail Lake Rancho California, LLC v. Abreu, Case No. D061892 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 7, 2014) (unpublished) somewhat flummoxed the appellate court on review in challenging a denial of fee recovery under two contractual
Contractual Clauses in Retainer and Settlement Agreements Conferred Fee Entitlement Upon Former Law Firm. This next case demonstrates a couple of things—first, be careful how you draft settlement releases (because they may release inadvertent parties and give rise to fee recovery), and second, subjective intent evidence is generally not probative in parol evidence
Declaratory Relief Count Was Contractual; Fee Clause Did Encompass Nonsignatory Defendants As Far As Fee Recovery. Fresno, California has a fairly large Hmong population, and this next case was a contractual battle between corporate parties and officers/directors where plaintiffs eventually dismissed their case against prevailing party defendants pursuant to stipulation after failing to
De Novo Review Shows Fee Entitlement, Where Winning Borrower Showed Note/Trust Deed Unenforceable. Borrower in Rohde v. Clark, Case No. F064642 (5th Dist. Jan. 30, 2014) (unpublished) defeated lender’s claim on a promissory note and second trust deed on the basis they were barred by the antdeficiency statutes. Based on fees clauses in
Earlier, Second District, Division 2 Came to Same Result in Unpublished Opinion. Reasonableness is one of those concepts finding wide application in the law, whether the “reasonable person” in tort or criminal law or what most judges like to see in the positions being taken by practitioners on behalf of their clients.
Fee/Costs Award of $96,518 Affirmed on Appeal in Favor of Prevailing LLC Co-Manager. Prevailing party status, we would observe, does focus on pragmatics, especially under Civil Code section 1717 (which allows recovery of fees under certain circumstances where there is a fees clause). The next case illustrates that in the context of a
