Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717: Hmong Litigation Fight Results In Prevailing Defendants Gaining $88,742.47 In Attorney’s Fees In Dismissed Lawsuit

Cases: Section 1717

  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 […]

Section 1717: Borrower Beating Lender On Ground Collection Barred By Antideficiency Statutes Entitled To 1717 Fee Recovery

Cases: Section 1717

  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 Jan. 30, 2014) (unpublished) defeated lender’s claim on a promissory note and second trust deed on the basis they were barred by the antdeficiency statutes.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

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Fourth District, Division 3, In Unpublished Decision Determines That Contractual “Actual Fees” Clause Subject To Civil Code Section 1717 Reasonableness Requirement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Earlier, Second District, Division 2 Came to Same Result in Unpublished Opinion.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.     

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: LLC Co-Manager Obtaining Buy-Out In Dissolution After Two Years Of Litigation Entitled To Prevailing Party Fee Recovery Under LLC Operating Agreement

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  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

Estoppel/Section 1717: Contract Only Allowing For Recovery Of Costs, Not Specifying Attorney’s Fees, Did Not Give Rise To Fee Recovery

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

  However, Prevailing Party Did Get Routine, Non-Fee Costs Based on Waiver/Inadequate Record on Appeal.      In Yamtob v. Alon, Case No. B247453 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 31, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a dispute to defendant/cross-complainant, who certainly obtained a net recovery judgment against plaintiff arising out of a diamond transaction. (Fitting over the

Allocation/Employment/Landlord-Tenant/Section 1717: Wild Landlord/Tenant And Minimum Wage Earner Battle Means All Fee Awards Had To Be Reversed

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

  Rental Inhabitability Battles Are Contractual, Giving Rise to 1717 Fee Exposure, While Limited Success On Minimum Wage Mandatory Fee-Shifting Claims Requires Apportionment and Possible Reduction.       This next case is hard to pigeonhole, because it involves cross-over issues in the Landlord/Tenant and Employment post sites. However, Staley v. Carlson, Case No. A133115 (1st Dist.,

Appealability/Section 1717: Nonsignatories Standing In Shoes Of Contractual Party Faced Fee Exposure Under Credit Application Fee Clauses

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

  Appellate Fees After Prior Reversal Properly Appealable Under Collateral Order Doctrine.      Defendants appealed from an assessment of $47,852.77 in appellate fees resulting from a prior appeal (involving a reversal) in Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com, Case No. G047737 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 23, 2013) (unpublished), where the appellate fees were awarded on remand.

Section 1717: Party Taking Title Pursuant To Quiet Title Judgment, Not Documents With Fee Clauses, Properly Denied Recovery Of 1717 Fees

Cases: Section 1717

  Party Requesting Fees Would Not Have Faced Exposure to Successor Lender Under Document Fee Clauses.      In the Civil Code section 1717 context, especially involving non-signatories, alter egos, successor or joint venturers, a crucial inquiry for recovery is whether this class of litigants would have faced fee exposure under a fees clause to the

Cases Under Review/Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Kandy Kiss Case Under Review

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Briefing Looks Completed; Issue Is Whether Procedural Victory Based on Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction Entitles Litigant to Prevailing Party Status Under Civil Code Section 1717.      On both September 22, 2012 and December 27, 2012, we posted on Kandy Kiss of California, Inc. v. Tex-Ellent, Inc., a Second District decision affirming an award of attorney’s

Section 1717/Settlement: Lower Court Erred In Denying Contractual Fees To Prevailing Party Upon Written Reply Memorandum Request Before Party Had Chance To Properly File Motion For Fees

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  Denial Order Changed to Provide Prevailing Party Was Entitled to Fees Upon Subsequent Motion.      In Salazar v. Salazar, Case No. D061716 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 4, 2013) (unpublished), a court enforced a settlement agreement between brothers, with the agreement and a promissory note containing fees clauses in the event of a default.

Scroll to Top