Cases: Section 1717

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      DeSantis v. Oakmont LLC, Case No. A128220 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 7, 2012) (unpublished) is a wild case on appeal involving parties suing over a failed real estate transaction, with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

Section 1717: $23,323.83 Fee Award Remanded For Recalculation Because Contract Claim Did Give Rise To Recovery, But Tort Claims Did Not

Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

  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

Section 1717: Fee Award To Contract Nonsignatory Reversed Because Nonsignatory Cannot Recover Fees On Noncontract Claims

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

  $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/Tenant; Section 1717: Landlord Substantially Winning Unpaid Rent Suit Garners Fees Of $313,424.45 Even Though Damages Won Only Totaled About $202,411

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

  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

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Broadly Worded Fee Clauses In Loan Documents And Guaranties Allowed Bank Entitlement To Substantial Fee Recovery

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  “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

Costs/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Quantum Meruit Is Not “On A Contract” Under Section 1717 And Prevailing Attorney Entitled To Routine Costs, But Not Fees Under Ambiguous Fees Clause

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Quantum Meruit, Cases: Section 1717

       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

Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717/Settlement: Plaintiff Breaching Settlement Agreement With Fees Clause Gets Hit With $110,000 In Attorney’s Fees Even Though Specific Settlement Judge Refused To Hear Post-Settlement Fee Motion

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  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

Scroll to Top