Cases: Section 1717

Construction/Prompt Payment Statutes/Section 1717: $528,410.24 In Fees/Costs Awarded To Winning Defendant/Cross-Complainant Under Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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 A127917/A128743 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 21, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff sued for unpaid contractor fees under a construction contract with a fees clause, and defendant/cross-complainant countersued for defective work.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 […]

Indemnity/Section 1717: Indemnity Fee Award Affirmed; Section 1717 Award Reversed After Voluntarily Dismissal of Some Claims

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

  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

Two-Fer: Special Fee Shifting Statute/Section 1717 Unpublished Cases

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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      In North County Acoustics, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. D057720 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 27, 2011) (unpublished), subcontractor was hit with an adverse attorney’s fees award of $42,455.05 after losing a stop notice contest with a construction lender

Section 1717: Discrete Claims Adjudged In Defendant’s Favor Gave Rise To Fee Exposure To Voluntary Dismissal By Plaintiff Of Suit After Adjudication

Cases: Section 1717

  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.

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Landlord Prevailed Where It Recovered All Of Monetary Damages Sought And Despite Dismissing Action At Court’s Insistence Later

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  $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

Section 1717: Winner In CEQA Action Cannot Recover Section 1717 Fees In Mere Postjudgment Fee Proceeding In The CEQA Action

Cases: Section 1717

  Separate Contractual Action Necessary to Support 1717 Fee Recovery.      In a follow-up to a CEQA action centering primarily on the arroyo toad (bufo microscaphus californicus), the winning developer sought attorney’s fees in the CEQA action through a postjudgment hearing. The basis was an indemnity clause (which did allow for fee recovery) by which

Scroll to Top