Cases: Section 1717

Section 998/Section 1717: Plaintiff, Although Not Prevailing Under Section 1717, Did Beat Its Statutory Pretrial Settlement Offer Such That It Was Entitled to Postoffer Attorney’s Fees As 998 Costs From The Defense

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  Opinion Will Give Added Importance to Section 998 Costs(Fee)-Shifting.      Well, well, we can report that there has been an interesting appellate “explosion” of opinions in the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 area. The First District, Division 5, has entered into the fray.      In SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. v. Five Bridges […]

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Parties Not Prevailing On Dueling Contractual Claims Also Not Entitled To Contractual Fee Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  No One Got A Clear Win, So Go Your Own Way, Says Appellate Court in Much More Eloquent Fashion.      Under Civil Code section 1717, ya gotta prevail–and that is a pragmatic determination, which means ya gotta be a clear winner (not just a contender). In the next case, both plaintiff and cross-complainant did

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Attorney Garnering Large Fee Award Lost It On Appeal Because Losing LLC Members Could Not Collect Fees From Him

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  $178,000 Fee Award Went POOF!      De novo review of a fees clause can be trouble for any litigant, appellant or respondent, on appeal. This means the appellate courts put their contractual interpretation “hats” on to see if the construction passes muster. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn’t.      Doesn’t was the verdict in

Section 1717: Plaintiffs Losing Specific Performance Complaint And Defendants Losing Damages Cross-Complaint Were Not Prevailing Parties, No Matter How You Slice The Ham

Cases: Section 1717

  Fifth District Weighs in on Silver Creek Comparative Measuring Test and Hsu Dicta on “Defensive” Cross-Complaints.      Above:  Lewis Wiggins cutting off a slice of homecured ham in his smokehouse.  June 1940.  Marion Post Wolcott, photographer.  Library of Congress.      Here is an interesting Civil Code section 1717 decision from the Fifth District, authored

Year in Review – 2011

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Pleading, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998, Year in Review

Wrapping It Up:  M & M’s Top 25 Attorney’s Fees Decisions For 2011  Part 1 of 2      It is that time of year, at year end, for us to list our top published attorney’s fees decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and California Courts of Appeal. Although we normally

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Landlord Prevailing On Tenants’ Defense Cross-Complaint Involving Personal Property Retrieval Statutes Did Not Prevail “On A Contract” For Section 1717 Purposes

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Landlord Lost $23,029.88 Fee Recovery When Fee Award Deleted From Judgment by Appellate Court.      Although originally unpublished, the appellate court in Kumar v. Yu, Case No. B226335 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 17, 2011) certified its opinion for publication on December 16, 2011.      Basically, landlord lost a contractual lease dispute with a

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Section 1717/Section 998/Allocation: Fee Awards Do Not Have To Be Proportional To Damages Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  2d Dist., Division 6 So Holds In Two Unpublished Opinions, Besides Facing Other Issues. Weiss v. Cope, Case No. B24970 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished)      In this one, plaintiff rejected defendant’s 998 offer. However, plaintiff’s total judgment–the sum of the jury award and $100,000 in attorney’s fees awarded by the

Retainer Agreements/Section 1717: Second District, Division 6 Finds Trope Fee Waiver Unenforceable

Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

  No Lock On Trope Waiver, But Court Finds Fees For Other Attorneys May Not Be Barred By Trope; Nonsignatory Entitled to Fees Based on Alter Ego Theory.      Here is an interesting unpublished decision from the Second District, Division 6–interesting because it parts company with the holding in Lockton v. O’Rourke, 184 Cal.App.4th 1051

Section 1717/Deadlines: Prevailing Landlord Forfeited Fee Entitlement By Not Filing Noticed Motion For Fees

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Section 1717

  Merely Objecting to Preliminary View in Statement of Decision Not Enough.      Landlord won modest damages in case, but was denied an award of attorney’s fees in a statement of decision giving a preliminary view on the prevailing party issue, a statement drawing objections by both sides and resulting in an eventual judgment stating

Scroll to Top