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 Here is an interesting unpublished decision from the Second District, Division 6–interesting because it parts company with the holding in Lockton v. O’Rourke, 184 Cal.App.4th 1051 […]
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
$8.6 Million and $3.1 Million Defense Fee Recoveries Affirmed on Appeal. For those of you wanting to justify substantial fee awards under Civil Code section 1717, Linear Technology Corp. v. Tokyo Electron, Ltd., Case No. H035713 (6th Dist. Nov. 22, 2011) (certified for publication) is must reading. There, in a breach of
Prompt Payment Statute Did Not Mean Fees Went to Plaintiff Winning Some Money. In Angotti & Reilly v. Alexander Group, Case Nos. A127917/A128743 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 21, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff sued for unpaid contractor fees under a construction contract with a fees clause, and defendant/cross-complainant countersued for defective work. Plaintiff obtained
Longstanding Case May Be Finally Resolved Except for Appeal Costs for Two Parties. In our February 20, 2009 post, we looked at a complicated, multi-party construction dispute that produced some interesting fee rulings. That case was Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Roofing Corp. Because the 2009 appellate opinion remanded for reconsideration of certain
Construction Lender Gets Fees For Successfully Defending Bonded Stop Notice Claim. In North County Acoustics, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. D057720 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 27, 2011) (unpublished), subcontractor was hit with an adverse attorney’s fees award of $42,455.05 after losing a stop notice contest with a construction lender
Fifth District Rules in a “Novel Situation for the Application” of Section 1717. This next one is sure to engender some further jurisprudence in the Civil Code section 1717 area, with the appellate court acknowledging it presented “a novel situation for the application of section 1717.” CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado, Case No.
$83,153 Fee Award Sustained Against Losing Tenant. Landlord sued tenant for unpaid rent under a prior settlement agreement under which the lease was terminated, tenant would vacate the premises in “turn key” condition, and assign certain FF&E (furniture, fixtures, and equipment) as well as its liquor license. The agreement also specified that landlord
Reciprocity Principles of Section 1717 Prevailed. In Montana Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Mark, Case No. B228772 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 29, 2011) (unpublished), appellant plaintiff lost a suit against respondent defendants for failure to pay bail bond premiums where there was a bail bond agreement with a broadly worded fees clause. The
However, Award Againt Nonsignatory Reversed. We have done numerous posts over the last 3 plus years on attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717. If two lessons have emerged, it is to pay attention to the breadth of the attorney’s fees clause and your status in the litigation (signatory, third party beneficiary, assignee,
