Broad Fee Clause and Compulsory Cross-Complaint Issue Sealed the Deal. You knew that this next case would be interesting when the appellate court said the following: “The records make it abundantly clear, however, that the litigation became extremely contentious, and even the parties’ lawyers became infected with the rancor and ceased to act […]
Fee Award Does Not Have to be Proportional to Damages Award for Civil Code Section 1717 “Prevailing Party” Purposes. Here is one which, yet again, reiterates that trial courts have tremendous discretion in determining the “prevailing party” under Civil Code section 1717 as well as the amount of damages to be awarded–which do not
Sixth District Rejected 1717 Mutuality Challenge, But Did Remand For Determination of Reasonable Fee After Proof Failure. Here is a very interesting one at the top of a new year in the retainer agreement/Civil Code section 1717/reasonableness of fees areas. Palmer v. Taylor, Case No. H033644 (6th Dist. Jan. 4, 2011) (unpublished) was
$20,147.50 Fee Award and $3,581.87 Costs Award Go POOF! We have many times explored the restriction in Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 292 (1995) [one of our Leading Cases], where in propria persona attorneys cannot recover Civil Code section 1717 fees expended in litigating matters on their own behalf. The hallmark of situations
Entire Contract Must Be Considered in Fashioning Fee Award. Acting Presiding Justice O’Leary, from our local Fourth District, Division 3, has penned a 3-0 decision that reminds us of the statutory breadth of Civil Code section 1717, the fee shifting provision applicable to contractual fee clauses. The case is Ghods v. Citicorp Vendor Finance,
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
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
$3,800 Damage Award Garners $37,100 Fee Recovery. Under Civil Code section 1717 (a fee shifting statute tethered to a contractual fees clause), do fee awards have to be somewhat proportionate to the damages recovered by a prevailing party? The answer will come from reading our discussion of the next case. DC Painting, Inc.
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
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,
