However, Defendant’s Beating of Contract Claim Did Give Rise to Fee Recovery. In Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc., Case No. D060849 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 20, 2012) (published), defendant defeated a plaintiff’s contract claim airising under a bid document containing a fees clause but lost a related promissory estoppel […]
Re-Do Is Result in this One. Defendants prevailed in a mixed contract/tort cause of action, awarded $23,323.83 in attorney’s fees by the trial court in Choi v. Behrman, Case No. B239288 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 20, 2012) (unpublished). On appeal, the reviewing court determined the matter had to go back for a
$49,500 Fee Award Reversed. Tenant must have felt pretty good after winning $49,500 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 after Landlords voluntarily dismissed with prejudice a mixed contract/tort case after Tenant filed a summary judgment claiming that he was not a party to a leasing agreement and that his signature was
Landlord’s Rejection of Equipment Transfer Settlement Offer Did Not Impact Fee Recovery, Because Equipment Transfer Worth Less Than Rental Damages. In Via Montana, LLC v. Pearson Realty, Inc., Case No. F061975 (5th Dist. Nov. 6, 2012) (unpublished), landlord won a little over $202,411 for unpaid rent and restaurant tenants won $3,550 for a
“Touching Upon” Language Found Especially Persuasive. Case law under Civil Code section 1717 allows for recovery of fees on a contract claim, and is augment by cases applying Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 if the contractual fees clauses are broad enough to encompass tort claims. Bank, a prevailing cross-defendant below on certain
In Siciliano v. Singh, Case Nos. E052352/E053582 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 5, 2012) (unpublished), one attorney won quantum meruit fees based on a voided contingency fee agreement, with both client and attorney seeking recovery of attorney’s fees and costs (even though, ultimately, attorney did beat out–barely–a CCP § 998 offer once routine
Fees Were Less Than Requested Based on Defendants’ Excessive Litigation Style, But Were Justified Because Plaintiff Did Everything Possible Not To Pay Under the Settlement. Civil Code section 1717 fee proceedings are equitable in nature. Don’t think for one moment that trial judges presiding over fee motions do not factor in each side’s
Soni v. CH&I Technologies, Inc., Case No. B235130 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 3, 2012) (unpublished) was a very contested donnybrook between an attorney and his former client, in which the president was also sued on the theory he was personally liable under the retainer agreement. Attorney won against former client corporation, garnering
Claim Is Equitable in Nature, Not Triggering Section 1717 Exposure. In Gibson v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Case No. A133721 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 3, 2012) (unpublished), a lower court awarded attorney’s fees to an individual defendant on a cancellation of instrument claim based on the notion that it was an
Second District Finds Profits Concepts and PNEC Better Reasoned Than Drummond; Federal Court Denial Of Fees Based On No Contract With Fees Clause Did Not Require Different Result. Interesting procedural issues were at the forefront in Kandy Kiss of California, Inc. v. Tex-Ellent, Inc., Case No. B234541 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 21,
