Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Fee Award in Case Involving Reggie Bush … And Clarifies Otay River Constructors in the Process. Here is one for all of you U.S.C. alumni or fans, involving civil litigation that impacts former collegiate football great Reggie Bush. The decision shows how the procedural context of a case can […]
Recent Case Illustrates Operation of this Mutuality Principle. In Silva v. Tong, Case No. A124903 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 11, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff sought to enforce a purchase offer with an attorney’s fees clause as an enforceable contract even though it was never signed by defendants. Defendants were granted summary judgment, and then
Fourth District, Division 1 Address Plethora of Fee Issues in Unpublished Decision. Well, strap your helmets on, readers, because we now synopsize a 75-page unpublished decisions dealing with a cornucopia (a good word in celebration of upcoming Thanksgiving) of attorney’s fees issues under California law. In The Gifted Schools v. Grahovac Construction Co.,
Court of Appeal Finds Fee Clause is Broad Enough to Encompass All Three Actions. Under Civil Code section 1717, the key to recovering fees in disputes involving contract and tort claims often devolves to a determination of whether the fee clause is sufficiently broad to encompass matters “arising out of” or “concerning” the
Fourth District, Division 1 So Holds In a Result Consonant With Prior Reviewed Decisions on this Website. Here is one we have seen before, but bears repeating. Attorney sues to collect on a receivable owed from a former client, but through a cross-complaint after client sues for legal malpractice. Attorney prevails in both
Two Unpublished Decisions Highlight the Key Distinction. 1. Solomon v. Solomon, Case No. B209627 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 12, 2009) (unpublished). In this one, former wife sued to enforce a settlement agreement containing an attorney’s fees clause. She moved to enforce the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, the statutory summary
Both Determinations Affirmed on Appeal. In Marinos v. City of Rocklin, Case Nos. C058958/C060844 (3d Dist. Nov. 4, 2009) (unpublished), defendants City and landlord prevailed on a summary judgment motion based on plaintiffs not complying with a notice provision in a settlement agreement with a fees clause. The trial court then awarded defendants $184,605
Second District, Division 3 Address Many, Many Procedural Issues in Unpublished Opinion. In Matusek v. Benn, Case No. B206776 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 29, 2009) (unpublished), two sets of defendants (the Murad and Benn defendants, each set composed of businesses and their principals) contracted to create an infomercial using an appearance by plaintiff
Second District, Division 4 Explores Some “Nooks and Crannies” of Section 1717 in Unpublished Opinion. This next case, albeit unpublished, is a very scholarly discussion of Civil Code section 1717, exploring nonsignatory and fee clause breadth issues. And, best for us, only a challenge to a denial of attorney’s fees is involved. So, with
Second District, Division 7 Sustained “No Prevailing Party” Determination Under Civil Code Section 1717. One of our leading cases is Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (1995). It is must reading for all litigators, and might save your client a substantial amount of fees if you can talk the clients into believing that Civil
