Cases: Section 1717

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 20 Attorney’s Decision Fees Decisions–Part 2 of 2.

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

     Here is the second installment of our top 20 decisions.      10. Jankey v. Lee, 181 Cal.App.4th 1173 (1st Dist., Div. 4 2010), review granted, No. S180890 (May 12, 2010) — authored by Presiding Justice Ruvolo; discussed in our Feb. 6, 2010 post.      Attorney’s fees are awardable to a prevailing defendant under Civil […]

Section 1717: Trope Limitation Did Apply Where Employed Associate Of Plaintiff Lawyer Was Used to Successfully Sue Former Client For Unpaid Fees

Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 1 Finds Witte Is Most Analogous “Fit.”      What do irony, zeugma, and Witte have in common?  Trope.      Civil Code section 1717 is an oft-used fee shifting provision used where there is a contractual fee clause. However, the California Supreme Court in Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 291 (1995) [one

Section 1717, Allocation, Civil Rights Cost Recovery, Prevailing Party, And Section 998: Court Of Appeal Faces A Melange Of Fee/Costs Issues

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division One Affirms Trial Court’s “Wash” Decision on Issues.      The next case involves a melange of fee and costs issues arising from a contract and civil rights case in which plaintiff recovered nothing on her claims but beat school district’s contract cross-claim. That gave rise to all sort of prevailing party claims

Section 1717 And Prevailing Party: Fourth District, Division 3 Extends Profit Concepts Holding to Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal

Cases: Quashing/Lack of Jurisdiction, Cases: Section 1717

Personal Jurisdiction Quash Grounds Not Seen Different From Forum Dismissal.      I guess we can wax nostalgic, but why or why not? The great thing about our blog is we report on continuing jurisprudence which, like a river, continues on and on each day.      In our first post going back to May 11, 2008,

Civil Code Section 1717/Fees Clause Interpretation: $33,500 Fee Affirmed Under Reciprocity Principles

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Settlement Agreement Fees Clause Was Broad, Making Blickman Inapt.      The breadth of a fees clause will often determine whether Civil Code section 1717 reciprocity principles apply. For example, very narrow clauses were found not to give rise to reciprocity in Blickman Turkus, L.P. v. MF Downtown Sunnyvalle, LLC, 162 Cal.App.4th 858 (2008) and Real

Section 1717: Nonsignatory Cross-Complainant Not Liable For Fees Under Contractual Fee Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 2 Applies Classic Reciprocity Principles Under 1717.      Baker v. Oleander Corp., Case No. B221193 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 8, 2010) (unpublished) is another reminder of how reciprocity principles under Civil Code section 1717 operate in cases involving contractual nonsignatory and signatory litigants. It also shows how trial courts will apportion

Civil Code Section 1717: Broad Performance Bond Language Is Made Mutual So That Contractor Defeating Owner’s Cross-Complaint Was Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

1717 Reciprocity Principles Save the Day Again, Sustaining $366,916.63 Fee Award.      Many construction disputes involve tripartite affairs between owner, contractor, and surety on a performance bond. That was exactly the situation in the next case, with a performance bond having a fee provision that said this: "Contractor/Principal and Surety agree that if the DISTRICT

Scroll to Top