Cases: Section 1717

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 D061077/D061676 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 26, 2013) (unpublished) looks like it may be finally finished, thanks to this decision.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      Milette v. Vaughns, Case No. A134468 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 22, 2013) (unpublished) teaches all settling parties an important lesson: if you want to recover fees after a settlement, make sure the settlement or ensuing judgment pursuant to the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

Section 1717: Third Party Beneficiary And Equitable Theories Did Not Allow For Fee Recovery To Proportional Lenders Who Were Not Signatories To Documents With Fee Clauses

Cases: Section 1717

       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.

Mediation/Section 1717: Side Agreement With Fees Clause Did Allow Prevailing Party To Obtain Fee Recovery Without Having To Pursue Mediation First

Cases: Mediation, Cases: Section 1717

  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

Equity/Section 1717/Poof!: Fifth District Finds “Buried, One-Sided” Escrow Agreement Fees Clause Was Unconscionable As To Losing Putative Class Action Plaintiff On Government Code Excessive Notary Fee Claim

Cases: Equity, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

  $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

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: “Action” Language In Written Easement Agreement Fees Clause Encompassed Both The Complaint Or An Answer Raising A Successful Defense

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  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

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Third-Party Beneficiaries Win Fee Recovery Under Broadly Worded Prevailing Party Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  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

POOF!/Section 1717: Plaintiff Winning Breach Of Contract Claims With Unilateral Fee Clause Entitled To Recovery Under Reciprocity Principle

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717

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.

Allocation/Landlord-Tenant/Section 1717: No Allocation Of Fees Required Between Contract And Tort Claims Where Claims Are Interrelated

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

  $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

Scroll to Top