Plaintiff Winning $25,455 In Damages Also Received $33,253.15 in Fees/Costs. Plaintiff in Harmon v. Abdulzahara, Case No. E055089 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 9, 2013) (unpublished) won a breach of contract damages award of $25,455. Then, the lower court also awarded fees of $30,000 and costs of $3,253.15. Defendant appealed, but the appellate […]
Party’s Effort To Invalidate Agreements With Fee Clause Did the Trick For Fee Entitlement. In Eden Township Healthcare Dist. v. Eden Medical Center, Case No. A136695 (1st Dist.,, Div. 1 Oct. 9, 2013) (published), cross-defendant appealed a lower court’s decision denying it attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 after cross-complainant lost a
$181,933 “Generous” Fee Award Not Out of Bounds. LA Open Door Presbyterian Church v. Evangelical Christian Credit Union, Case No. B246853 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 4, 2013) (unpublished) is a situation where a defendant was voluntarily dismissed from a suit involving a contract (a written forbearance agreement with a fees clause). Although
998 Accepted Offer Was $40,000, Chagrined Plaintiff Denied Requested $225,750 In Fees. Care of Justice Yegan and his colleagues in the Second District, Division 6, we have an interesting CCP § 998/Civil Code § 1717 decision in The DuPuis Group v. Atticus Information Systems, Inc., Case No. B242722 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept.
Alter Ego and Kindred Successor Theories Treated Alike Under Section 1717. We reported on Brown Bark III v. Haver, Case No. G047198 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 26, 2013) (unpublished) in our September 2, 2013 post, where a fee denial was reversed with respect to a prevailing defendant alleged to be the successor
Fee Clauses Not Broad Enough to Support Tort Claim Wins, So Case Remanded to Fix Fees And Determine If Any Apportionment Necessary. Brown Bark III, L.P. v. Haver, Case No. G047198 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 26, 2013) (unpublished) involved a defendant alleged to be the continuation of a defunct defendant signatory to
Pre-Appraisal Participation in Litigating Issues Meant Corp. Code Section 17351(b) Did Not Trump Broadly Worded Fees Clause. Kashian v. Simonian, Case No. F064325 (5th Dist. Aug. 28, 2013) (unpublished) was a business litigation war between two founding member sides of an LLC. Plaintiffs filed for fiduciary duty breach, declaratory relief, and LLC judicial
This next opinion, Karr v. Statewide Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 245147 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2013) (unpublished), has two interesting points: (1) a motion to vacate a summary judgment was not “on the contract” for Civil Code section 1717 fee recovery purposes given the existence of a narrow fees clause in
Neither One Obtained Sought-After Litigation Objectives. When a lower court has discretion to decide who the prevailing party is, unless the facts show otherwise, the abuse of discretion generally applies on appellate review and dictates the result. That is what happened here. In Barez v. Ni, Case No. H037572 (6th Dist. July
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
