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 Arrambide v. Mastagni, Case No. B223980 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 2, 2012) (unpublished) reinforces a good lesson in the Civil Code section 1717 area–you can win fees on a cross-claim even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
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
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 Although originally unpublished, the appellate court in Kumar v. Yu, Case No. B226335 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 17, 2011) certified its opinion for publication on December 16, 2011.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
2d Dist., Division 6 So Holds In Two Unpublished Opinions, Besides Facing Other Issues. Weiss v. Cope, Case No. B24970 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished) In this one, plaintiff rejected defendant’s 998 offer.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
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 Here is an interesting unpublished decision from the Second District, Division 6–interesting because it parts company with the holding in Lockton v. O’Rourke, 184 Cal.App.4th 1051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
