Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Tenant Bank’s Summary Judgment Win In Unlawful Detainer Action Entitled It To Fee Recovery Under Civ. Code § 1717

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  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      Meeker v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. B225289 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 26, 2012) (unpublished) illustrates that Civil Code section 1717’s mandate of awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing party is indeed obligatory in nature, and that fee award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 […]

Reasonableness Of Fees: Over 20% Reduction In Requested Fees Established Reasonableness Of Trial Court Award Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  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      Bioquest Venture Leasing v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc., Case No. B225195 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 22, 2012) (unpublished) is one of those procedurally convoluted cases where plaintiff initially won and was awarded attorney’s

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

Scroll to Top