Cases: Section 1717 – Page 43 – Cal Attorneys Fees

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

October 28, 2011

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

October 9, 2011

$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: $24,190 Fee Award Affirmed Under Bail Bond Agreement With Broad Fees Clause

Cases: Section 1717

September 30, 2011

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 In Montana Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Mark, Case No. B228772 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 29, 2011) (unpublished), appellant plaintiff lost a suit against respondent defendants for failure to pay bail bond premiums where there was a bail bond agreement with a broadly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

Section 1717: Aggregate Fees/Costs Award of $675,000 In Easement Dispute With Fees Clause Affirmed

Cases: Section 1717

September 26, 2011

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,

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

Cases: Section 1717

July 9, 2011

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

Section 1717: Where Demurrer Ruling Reversed With Leave To Amend, $55,607.50 Fee Award Falls Also

Cases: Section 1717

July 7, 2011

Premature to Award Fee Until Dust Settles and Winner Can Be Declared. The next case we look at has interesting facts. Freeman, Freeman & Smiley, a Los Angeles law firm, sued its landlord after landlord allowed a third party to display supergraphic advertisements on the outside of the leased building in which

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Trope Restriction Applies To Non-Section 1717 Contexts

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

June 25, 2011

Bad News for Attorneys . . . Co-Counsel Cannot Try to Circumvent Limitation By Representing Each Other In De Novo Collection Matter Following Fee Arbitration. Here is a somewhat of a wild one, where two attorneys co-counseling for the same clients were denied fee recovery after a successful jury verdict, following on the

Section 1717/Prevailing Party: Only Winning Fee Recovery Issue On Appeal Does Not Make One A Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

June 14, 2011

Plaintiff Won Below, But Denied Fees Based on Trope, With Affirmance on Fee Recovery Not Making Defendant the Prevailing Party. The next case is an elegant, short unpublished decision that demonstrates Civil Code section 1717 “prevailing party” status must be based upon consideration of the whole lawsuit, not just an appellate win on

Section 1717: “Practical Liability” Approach to 1717 Fee Recovery Rejected

Cases: Section 1717

June 9, 2011

Fact that Trust Deed Holder Might Have to Pay Fees Assessed Against Homeowners Did Not Trigger 1717 Fee Recovery. Diamond Heights Village Assn., Inc. v. Financial Freedom Services Funding Corp., Case Nos. A126145 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 7, 2011) (certified for publication) is a good addition to Civil Code section 1717

Section 1717: Broadly Worded Fee Clause Meant Fees Had To Be Apportioned When Lease Only Signed By One Of The Defendants

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

May 25, 2011

Wild Landlord-Tenant Dispute Gives Rise to Reversal of $212,685 Fee Award Against Both Signing and Nonsigning Defendants. Robertson v. Sapir, Case No. B224458 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 24, 2011) (unpublished) was a “wild” landlord-tenant dispute including reported accusations of landlord’s brother (a tenant in a boarding room type of arrangement) bothering a