Appellate Court Reversed Trial Court Fee Denial, Finding Unity of Interest Rule Only Applied to Costs, Not Fee Awards. Hill v. Affirmed Housing Group, Case No. H035541 (6th Dist. Mar. 12, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where trustees of a trust sued an LLC and its managing member on the theory that LLC’s […]
Although Controlling the Litigation, Nonsignatory Had No Rights Assigned Under The Fees-Clause Bearing Settlement Agreement. Estate of Bennett, Case Nos. G043050 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2011) (unpublished), although a probate action, actually is a Civil Code section 1717 fees clause case, with the fee award affirmed by a 3-0
Mutuality Was There, Appellate Panel Rules. Note co-maker sued another note co-maker regarding repayment of a $500,000 loan to Vineyard Bank. Plaintiff lost this suit to one of the non-settling co-makers, with loser basically arguing that the attorney’s fees clause in the note only really applied to a conventional lender versus note maker
Trial Court’s Denial of Fees Reversed Because Bank Was Prevailing Party. Meeker v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. B225289 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 26, 2012) (unpublished) illustrates that Civil Code section 1717’s mandate of awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing party is indeed obligatory in nature, and that fee award denials–even
After All, When Initial Loser Became the Eventual Winner, Eventual Loser’s Fees Showed Eventual Winner’s Request Not All That Bad. Bioquest Venture Leasing v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc., Case No. B225195 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 22, 2012) (unpublished) is one of those procedurally convoluted cases where plaintiff initially won and was awarded attorney’s
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
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
Though Their Defense to Tort Claims Did Not Give Rise to a Fee Entitlement, Cross-Claim Win Did It For Prevailing Lessees. Arrambide v. Mastagni, Case No. B223980 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 2, 2012) (unpublished) reinforces a good lesson in the Civil Code section 1717 area–you can win fees on a cross-claim even
$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
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
