If one side does not win a clear victory in a case (such as nominal damages), the lower court can certainly award fees to the other side where it beat major exposure on claims involving a fee-shifting clause. That is exactly what happened in the next case we explore. In Core Wealth Mgt., […]
Award Is Sustained, But Winning Subcontractor Under Contract With Fees Clause Fights Back Unlicensed General Contractor’s Illegality Argument. Usually, under our category “Unlicensed Contractors,” we are dealing with decisions where an unlicensed contractor wins a dispute with a fees clause and attempts to obtain an award of attorney’s fees—not very successfully. In the next
Second District, Division 8 Follows Lead of Other Court on Dismissals That Ended Action. In Laing v. Guam Economic Development and Commerce Authority, Case No. B206680 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 30, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiffs suffered dismissal of an action they brought against certain Guam entities for failing to comply with the claim-filing
Integration Finding is Factual, With the Trial Court’s Determination Being Binding on Appeal. Whether several contracts relating to the same matters and between the same parties are integrated is a factual question. As the next decision we look at demonstrates, the resolution of this initial question may also dispose of a decision on
Fee Amount Did Not Have to be Pegged to L.A. Attorney Fee Schedule. Buyers of a Cessna jet aircraft won $320,000 in damages against sellers after sellers refused to deliver the aircraft on certain terms under a contract with a fees clause. The trial court awarded buyers a combined $248,531.36 in attorney’s fees,
Second District, Division 7 Examines the Interplay Between Two Statutory Schemes. There is a definite interplay between Civil Code section 1717 (allowing recovery to a prevailing party where there is a contractual fees clause) and Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (California’s offer to judgment statute). Where a party might otherwise be considered
Fourth District, Division 3 Remands Fee Recovery Under Unusual Procedural Circumstances. Here is an interesting decision with a procedural twist—with apologies to Chubby Checker (oh, boy, are we dating ourselves). Chubby Checker does the Twist. In Nguyen v. Dang, Case Nos. G041224/G041380 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 11, 2010) (unpublished), a signatory
Second District, Division 7 Finds Reversal of Prejudgment Interest Issue Requires Reexamination of Prevailing Party Determination and the Escrow Instructions Fee Clauses Were Sufficiently Broad for Fee Entitlement Purposes In Marina Glencoe, L.P. v. Malibu Escrow Corp., Case No. B203415 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 1, 2010) (unpublished), an apartment building purchaser recovered
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Nothing Wrong With “Joint and Several” Judgment. Plaintiff sold its property and assigned its rights under a lease with a particular tenant to another company becoming a co-plaintiff in an unlawful detainer action eventually won by defendant tenant. There was a fees clause, with the lower court awarding over
Analysis of Fee Recovery Under Multiple Agreements Must Focus On Contract With Fee Clause Predicate. Many decisions we have examined in the past under Civil Code section 1717 involve situations where multiple contracts (some with fees clauses and some without) are part of an integrated transaction or where apportionment between contract/noncontract claims was
