Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing Party: Defendant In State Court Obtaining Dismissal Of Action Due to Exclusive Federal Court Jurisdiction Entitled To Civil Code Section 1717 Attorney’s Fees As Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  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, […]

Allocation/Secetion 1717: Unity Of Interest Principle Questioned, With One Party Correctly Denied Fees But The Other Did Get An Unqualified Win And A Remand On Fee Determination

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  Denied Winner’s Fee Request Remanded For Apportionment.      Zintel Holdings, LLC v. McLean, Case No. B236139 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 18, 2012) (published) was an interesting lease slugfest where landlord lost its complaint against long-term tenants (son and mother) and mother lost her retaliatory harassment cross-complaint seeking independent damages on cross-motions for summary

Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees: Neighborhood Squabble Resulting In Injury To Dog Results In $ 93,780 Fee Award Based On Breach Of Prior Settlement Agreement

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  Fourth District, Division 3 Also Holds that a Pet Owner May Recover For Mental Suffering Cause By a Trespass Injuring or Killing Owner’s Animal.       Co-contributors Marc and Mike like this one, because they both have dogs—Marc has Watson and Mike has Riffle.      The Fourth District, Division 3 in Plotnik v. Meihaus, Case

Indemnity/Section 1717: Prevailing Alter Ego Defendant Awarded $134,469.36 On Contract Claim, But Properly Not Allowed Fee Recovery On Fraud Claim

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

  Fourth District, Division 1 Questions Validity of Hilltop Decision.      A prevailing alter ego defendant was awarded $134,469.36 out of a requested $353,047.50 in attorney’s fees based on Civil Code section 1717 and the Reynolds case [one of our Leading Cases], but was denied recovery of fees for successfully defending on a fraud claim

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Broadly Worded Fee Clauses In Note And Deed Of Trust Meant Former Conservator’s Win Against Lender Resulted In Substantial Fee Award

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  To the Victor, $233,33.75 in Fees, and Lender’s Appeal Did Not Upset Things.     “To the victor belong the spoils.”  Puck.  1914.  Library of Congress.       Lane v. U.S. Bank National Assn., Case Nos. A131087/A132432 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 28, 2012) (unpublished) is a good case for any practitioners needing a discussion of

Section 1717: Tenant Losing Post-Unlawful Detainer Proceeding Against Landlords Suffers Adverse Fee Award Based On Broad Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

  Unlawful Detainer Judgment Was Res Judicata, and Fees Clause Was Broad.      Howard v. Champion, Case No. B234337 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 15, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where landlords won a prior unlawful detainer judgment for possession and back rent against tenant, winning a summary judgment where the U.D. judge indicated there

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Defendants Winning Loan Litigation Based On Statute Of Limitations Entitled To Fee Recovery As Prevailing Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  $25,675 Was Awarded in Favor of Winning Defendants.       Plaintiffs, suing on a loan agreement with a fees clause, lost on statute of limitations (time bar) grounds to defendants in Hale v. Adams, Case No. B234826 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 14, 2012) (unpublished). Defendants then moved for and recovered $25,675 in attorney’s fees

Choice of Law/Indemnity/Section 1717: Losing Indemnitee Bears Full Requested Attorney’s Fees Against It, As Non-Prevailing Party, Of $161,669.87 For Being Defeated In Indemnity Action

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

  Indemnitee Drafted Pennsylvania Choice of Law Clause, Putative Indemnitor Conceded Fees Clause In Indemnity Agreement Was Reciprocal, And Apportionment Not Required Because Liability And Indemnity Issues Inextricably Intertwined.      You knew where this one was going when it opened “Appellant . . . was hoist by its own petard when the trial court enforced

Section 1717/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Losing Plaintiffs’ Efforts To Recoup Monies Under Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  None Under Either Section 1717 or the UFTA.      The Fourth District, Division 1 in Levine v. McAvoy, Case No. D058894 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 2, 2012) (unpublished) decided that fee exposure was correctly not visited upon losing plaintiffs seeking to recoup monies from third-party transferees under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA).

Requests For Admissions/Section 1717/Specific Fee Shifting Statutes: Property Owner Obtaining Cancellation Of Grant Deed For Fraud Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Recovery

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Three Grounds for Recovery Did Not Support Request.      Property owner in Marchi-Friel v. Rago, Case No. A130125 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 31, 2012) (unpublished) did obtain cancellation of a fraudulent grant deed, with the trial court also cancelling related promissory notes out of an abundance of caution. She then sought recovery of

Scroll to Top