Cases: Section 1717

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 Jan. 31, 2013) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) must have been feeling pretty good in this one.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 Services, Inc. v. Lundy, Case No. B238296 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 28, 2013) (unpublished), an injured longshoreman settled a worker’s compensation claim against SSA (terminal associated entities) and a personal injury action against City of Long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

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: $52,661 Contractual Fee Award To Defendant/Cross-Complainant Reversed Because No Side “Prevailed”

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  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

Costs/Indemnity/Section 1717: Cussler/Crusader Litigation Marathon Might Be Over–No One Prevailed To Fee Recovery But Crusader Entitled To Routine Costs Of $514,237.47

Cases: Costs, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

        Although we have presaged this crescendo in lengthy litigation between well-known novelist Clive Cussler (who has written novels featuring Dirk Pitt) and film producer Crusader Entertainment in prior September 9, 2010, and February 13, 2011 posts, the denouement apparently has arrived as far as fee/costs recovery in Cussler v. Crusader Entertainment, LLC, Case

Allocation/Section 1717/Tort of Another: $477,031 Attorney’s Fees Award Affirmed In Real Estate Purchase Appeal Where Both Sides Appealed

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Tort of Another

  No Prejudice In Arguing All Defendants Should Be Liable/Failure to Claim Tort of Another Fee Damages At Trial Dispositive Against Fee Petitioner.      DeSantis v. Oakmont LLC, Case No. A128220 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 7, 2012) (unpublished) is a wild case on appeal involving parties suing over a failed real estate transaction, with

Section 1717: Victory On Promissory Estoppel Claim Was Not “On The Contract” For Purposes of 1717 Fee Recovery

Cases: Section 1717

  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

Scroll to Top