$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 Milette v. Vaughns, Case No. A134468 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 22, 2013) (unpublished) teaches all settling parties an important lesson: if you want to recover fees after a settlement, make sure the settlement or ensuing judgment pursuant to the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 […]
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
In Savas v. Gerber, Case Nos. B236101/B237539 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 18, 2013) (unppublished), a three-eighths owners of a loan was disappointed when they did not receive a fee recovery against five-eighths owners after the nonjudicial foreclosure of some property in which they had proportionate loan holdings. Their appeal was unsuccessful, too.
Unlike Other Situations, Side Agreement Was Not Integrated With Stock Purchase Agreement Requiring Mediation First, Resulting in $162,983.81 Fee Recovery to Prevailing Party Under Side Agreement. In many cases we have posted on, Civil Code section 1717 worked to deny a fee recovery because several agreements were part of an integrated transaction, and
$266,801 Fee Award to Defense Went POOF! The defense in Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co., Case Nos. F063318/F063922 (5th Dist. Jan. 31, 2013) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) must have been feeling pretty good in this one. It had won a summary judgment against a plaintiff suing it on behalf of a
Appellate Court Reverses Fees Denial Order, Siding With Justice Armstrong’s Interpretation of “Action” in Gil. We now have a split of intermediate appellate thinking on whether “action” encompasses just the complaint or also a “defense” in an answer. Exxess Electronizz v. Heger Realty Corp., 64 Cal.App.4th 698 (1998) and Gil v. Mansano, 121
Clause Language and Negotiation of Settlement Demonstrated Prevailing Parties Were Third Party Beneficiaries In Homeport Ins. Services, Inc. v. Lundy, Case No. B238296 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 28, 2013) (unpublished), an injured longshoreman settled a worker’s compensation claim against SSA (terminal associated entities) and a personal injury action against City of Long
The Feeling Is Mutual Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B240301 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 14, 2013) (unpublished) demonstrates the reciprocity applicable to contractual fee clauses under Civil Code section 1717. It also demonstrates the POOF! principle applicable to results that are reversed on appeal.
$1.3 Million Fee Award Affirmed; Cassim Did Not Require Allocation in Civil Code Section 1717 Context Landlord and tenant got involved in a lease dispute resulting in a suit where both dueling contract and tort claims were pitted against each side, with tenant ultimately prevailing by winning $116,859 in lease damages and a
Plaintiff Received Minimal Security Deposit Award/Defendant Received One-Tenth Of Request–Result: No Unqualified Win. During this month of December 2012, we have seen a “swell” in intermediate appellate cases deciding whether a party prevailed for purposes of recovering fees under Civil Code section 1717 (applicable to contractual fee clauses). Here is another one to
