Cases: Section 1717

Judicial Arbitration: Two Attorney’s Fees Of About $35,000 Each To Different Defendant Groups Affirmed After Plaintiffs Dismissed Complaint After De Novo Trial Request

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 1717

  Arbitration Award Reinstated, Which Meant Substance of Attorney’s Fees Award Not Reviewable Absent Trial De Novo Request.      Here is one of the first decisions we have summarized dealing with a fee award in a judicial arbitration award which became binding after plaintiffs dismissed a complaint without prejudice after filing a trial de novo […]

Section 1717: 70% Lopsided Landlord Win In Lawsuit Meant Trial Court Abused Discretion In Not Awarding Contractual Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Standard of Review

  Discretion Only Goes So Far, Says Our Local Appellate Court      Presiding Justice Sills, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local appellate court, determined in La Cuesta v. Benham, Case No. G043788 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 29, 2011) (certified for publication) that discretion can only go so far when a litigant

Prevailing Party/Section 998/Section 1717: Defendant Prevailed Under Section 1717 Because Earlier Appellate Court Decision Found Reversal And No Need For Retrial

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal Without Effect; Offset for Prior Settlements Meant No Change in Result Due to Her Prior 998 Offer.      A trifecta of issues was considered by the appellate court in Goldstein v. Williams, Case No. D057826 (Mar. 24, 2011) (unpublished).      In this one, plaintiff sued for breach of contract and in

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Court’s OSC Dismissal of Entire Action, Both Complaint And Cross-Complaint, Meant No Contractual Fees Were Recoverable

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

. . . However, Remand For Fee Recovery Evaluation on Dismissed Tort Claim.      For you folks entertaining voluntarily dismissals of actions, must reading in this area–if you are bothered about attorney’s fees exposure–is our state supreme court’s decision in Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 602, 607-608 (1998) [one of our Leading Cases]. We

Ethics/Section 1717: Joseph P. Wohrle Pens Recent Article “Identifying Key Issues In Attorney’s Fees Litigation”

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Section 1717

March 2011 Article in The Advocate Magazine Explores Central Fee Issues.      For readers wanting a recent primer on key issues in attorney’s fees litigation, we commend for reading Joseph P. Wohrle’s article “Identifying Key Issues in Attorney’s Fees Litigation” which is published in the March 2011 edition of Advocate Magazine.      Mr. Wohrle, a

Section 1717/Costs: Another Two-Fer . . . . Gotta Have A Substantive Basis To Claim Recovery Of Attorney’s Fees Or Expert Witness Fees As Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 1717

ABC-Learn, Inc. v. Coronado, Case No. B219107 (2d Dist., Div. 2 March 2, 2011) (Unpublished).      In this one, a prevailing defendant appealed a lower court’s denial of his request to recoup $136,140 in attorney’s fees under a commercial lease dispute involving a lease agreement and unsigned purchase agreement/joint escrow instructions. The problem here was

Section 1717: Recent Article In The Recorder Discuss Fee Shifting Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Section 1717

Article Highlights Possible Division on Contractual Claim Partial Dismissals Under Section 1717.      Robert Freitas and Siddhartha Venkatesan, in a February 16, 2011 article entitled “Recovering Attorneys Fees” in The Recorder (e-newsletter available through Law.com), have written a nice, short article on recovering attorney’s fees under Civil Code section. Among under topics, they discuss fee

Sections 1717/998: Substantial Fee Awards To One Defendant And To Plaintiff As Against Other Defendants Sustained By Second District, Division One

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Mutuality Principles and Invalidity of 998 Offer Buttressed Correctness of Trial Court’s Fee Awards.      Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v University of Southern California, Case Nos. B202789/B205034 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 9, 2011) (unpublished) was a hard fought case where plaintiff sued USC for breach of contract. Although lost profits evidence was found to have

Section 1717: Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claim Was Not “On The Contract” For Civil Code Section 1717 Purposes

Cases: Section 1717

Defendant’s Fee Award Reversed Because Plaintiff’s Pleadings Based on Statutory Corporations Code Duty, Not a Contract With a Fees Clause.      Tabibian v. Waldman, Case No. B220760 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 9, 2011) (unpublished) is a case where plaintiff sued for breach of fiduciary duty/loyalty under Corporations Code section 309 even though there was

Scroll to Top