Cases: Section 1717

Arbitration/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Interesting Cross-Issue Case–Party Enjoining Arbitration Was Not Adverse Prevailing Party

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Court Can Award 1717 Fees With Enforceable Limitations–Such As, Did Adverse Party Acted Arbitrarily, Vexatiously, In Bad Faith Or Unreasonably–You Bethca!      We like Abbey v. Fortune Drive Associates, LLC, Case No. A135062 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 29, 2013) (unpublished) for a lot, if not a couple of, reasons: (1) it talks about […]

Estoppel/RFAs/Section 1717: Denial Of Fees To Nonsignatory Defendants And $45,000 Against Defendants For “Costs Of Proof” Sanctions Based On Three RFA Denials Upheld

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 1717

  This Case Cuts Across Several Issue Categories. Two painted bronze “golfers” compare notes.  Carol M. Highsmith Collection.  Library of Congress.      Masters v. Burton, Case Nos. B234555/B239447 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 25, 2013) (unpublished) is a case about errant golf balls and litigation claiming concealment of the golf ball “hazard” in connection with

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Nonsignatory Successor Correctly Exposed To Fee Exposure Where Complaint And Cross-Complaint Sought Interpretation Of Settlement Agreement With A Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

  Primary Right Showed Contractual Dispute Involved.      In CT Glendale, LLC v. Liu, Case No. B241445 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 17, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained $37,612 in Civil Code section 1717 contractual fees in a litigation dispute interpreting which party owned cabinetry under a settlement agreement also containing a fees clause. Plaintiff won

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Plaintiffs Winning Lease Dispute Under Broad Fees Clause Entitled To $158,180.75 Fee Recovery

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Defendant Recovered Less on Cross-Complaint Contractual Claim, So Plaintiffs Prevailed.      Julius Castle Restaurant, Inc. v. Payne, Case Nos. A130955 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 10, 2013) (partially published; fee discussion not published) may be one of the first published cases discussing post-Riverisland factors for the courts and juries to consider after the overruling

Prevailing Party/Section 1717/Substantiation Of Fees/Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees: Tobacco I Case Now Certified For Publication

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

"Alex," prize German police dog and pet of Miss Ailsa Mellon, daughter of Treas. smokes cigarettes n’everything. Alex’s father is the $12,000 prize police dog "Wolfe".  1924.  Library of Congress.       In our April 27, 2013 post, we explored Tobacco I, an April 23 unpublished decision out of the Fourth District, Division 1 dealing with

Settlement/Section 1717/Trade Secret: Court of Appeal Honors Settlement Agreement Procedures Reserving Fee Determination

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement, Cases: Trade Secrets

Settlement Agreement’s Reservation Of Fee Determination Based on Trade Secret Misappropriation Statute Did Allow Lower Court To Determine If Fee Entitlement Proven In Postjudgment Fee Proceeding Denial of Fee Recovery Reversed and Remanded.      Khavarian Enterprises, Inc. v. Commline, Inc., Case No. B243467 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 14, 2013) (published) demonstrates that appellate courts

Allocation/Employment/Section 1717: Employer Defendants Win $167,104.87 In Fees For Prevailing On Contract Claims, While Employee Winning On Wage/Hour Claim Receives $15,140 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 1717

  Trial Court Decision Affirmed on Appeal.       Plaintiff, a chief technology officer, sued his ex-employer and a couple of other employees, losing contract and conversion claims but winning about $20,000 on an unpaid wage/hour claim. Both sides then moved for attorney's fees. The trial court awarded the defendants $167,104.87 in fees on the contract

Prevailing Party/Section 1717/Substantiation Of Fees/Apportionment/Reasonableness Of Fees: People Of The State Of California Get $2.944 Million Fee Recovery In Tobacco Cases I Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

     Cigarette ad, Times Square.  Feb. 1943.  John Vachon, photographer.  LOC.      Although this case has quite a storied history, In re Tobacco Cases I, Case Nos. D061077/D061676 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 26, 2013) (unpublished) looks like it may be finally finished, thanks to this decision.      What happened is this, in brief. People,

Section 1717: Fee Recovery Denied To Trial Settling Plaintiff Because Settlement Or Subsequent Settlement Did Not Have Fee Entitlement Basis

Cases: Section 1717

  $116,275 in Requested Fees Was the Resultant Loss.      Milette v. Vaughns, Case No. A134468 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 22, 2013) (unpublished) teaches all settling parties an important lesson: if you want to recover fees after a settlement, make sure the settlement or ensuing judgment pursuant to the settlement has a fees clause

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Voluntarily Dismissing Plaintiff May Still Be Exposed To Attorney’s Fees Under Santisas On Remand

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Fee Denial Reversed and Remanded.      Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) is one of our Leading Cases. It held that a voluntary dismissal of a case will bar Civil Code section 1717 contractually-based fee claim recovery, but not recovery under other claims. Instead, a broadly phrased fees clause may afford a contractual

Scroll to Top