Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717: Although Legal Error Present In Not Finding Fee Entitlement, Fee Denial Affirmed Because Of Failure To Apportion

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Standard of Review

  Fourth District, Division 3 Opinion Demonstrates Interplay Between De Novo and Abuse of Discretion Review Standards on Different Fee Award Issues.      The next case shows how a litigant may convince an appellate court that legal error was committed (de novo review of a fee entitlement issue), but the battle for reversal is lost […]

Section 1717 And Fees Clause Interpretation: Broad Fees Clause Meant Trial Court Erred In Denying Fee Recovery To Prevailing Mortuary

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 6 Also Holds Fees Do Not Have To Be Apportioned.      Broad contractual language allowing for fee recovery “in any lawsuit or other legal proceeding to which this Agreement gives” can even grant entitlement to fee recovery with respect to tort claims. (Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc., 3 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342-1343

Section 1717: Trope Staunches Another Fee Request

Cases: Section 1717

Founding Shareholder Representing Law Firm Was Disqualified From Fee Recovery.      Although Civil Code section 1717 is one of the better known fee-shifting statutes, there are restrictions to it. One such restriction pertains to attorneys who elect to represent themselves, with Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 277 (1995) establishing that an attorney representing himself

Section 1717: Litigants Receiving Only Nominal Damages On Cross-Complaint Did Not Prevail, With The Other Side Receiving $250,000 In Fees As The Winner.

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

     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.,

Section 1717 And Unlicensed Contractor: No One Is Happy About $2,000 Fee Recovery

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

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

Section 1717: Dismissal Of Action For Failure To Comply With Guam’s Government Claims Act Justified Award Of Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Party

Cases: Section 1717

  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

Section 1717 And Integrated Contracts: Separate Operative Contract With No Fees Clause Justified Denial Of Fee To Prevailing Parties In Contract Suit Involving Numerous Agreements

Cases: Section 1717

  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

CCP § 998 and CC § 1717: $60,270 Fee Award Affirmed Where Plaintiff Only Recovered $7,477.01

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  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

Section 1717: Appellate Court Remittitur Choice To Respondent On Damages Requires Reconsideration of Fee Award

Cases: Assignment, Cases: Section 1717

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

Scroll to Top