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,
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
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 Baker v. Oleander Corp., Case No. B221193 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 8, 2010) (unpublished) is another reminder of how reciprocity principles under Civil Code section 1717 operate in cases involving contractual nonsignatory and signatory litigants.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
Fourth District, Division 1 So Holds in Unpublished Decision. In pro per defendant (a former client) was sued by her family family law attorney for unpaid fees, being hit with a $57,500 contractually-based jury verdict and an award of $50,250 in attorney’s fees, plus prejudgment interest and costs. She appealed the fee award, arguing
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
Second District, Division 8 Sustains Award for Winning Party After Prevailing at Pleading Stage of Case. Who says that cases cannot resolve early, with an award of attorney’s fees to the winning party. The next one shows that this can be within the realm of possibility, even though many matters do not usually garner
Defendant Wives Found Unified in Interest With Settling Defendant Husbands; Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal of Wives Was Dispositive. You almost could tell what might happen in the next case. The case involved acrimonious litigation between sellers and buyers for mold and dry rot in a residential property. The parties were plaintiffs husband/wife, defendants husbands, and
