Cases: Section 1717

Civil Code Section 1717: Substance Of Motion Or Action Determines If “On The Contract” For Purposes of Contractual Fee Recovery

Cases: Section 1717

Two Unpublished Decisions Highlight the Key Distinction. 1. Solomon v. Solomon, Case No. B209627 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 12, 2009) (unpublished).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 […]

Prevailing Party: Defendants City And Landlord Win Summary Judgment and Gain $184,605 Fee Award As Prevailing Parties Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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 Nov. 4, 2009) (unpublished), defendants City and landlord prevailed on a summary judgment motion based on plaintiffs not complying with a notice provision in a settlement agreement with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

Costs And Fees: Defendants “Unified In Interest” Liable For Routine Costs And Are Denied Substantial Attorney’s Fees Because Allocation Was Proper

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division 3 Address Many, Many Procedural Issues in Unpublished Opinion.      In Matusek v. Benn, Case No. B206776 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 29, 2009) (unpublished), two sets of defendants (the Murad and Benn defendants, each set composed of businesses and their principals) contracted to create an infomercial using an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

Civil Code Section 1717: Nonsignatories Who Were Intended To Be Parties Can Be Entitled To Contractual Fee Recovery Even Though Contractual Clauses Are Very Limited In Nature

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 4 Explores Some “Nooks and Crannies” of Section 1717 in Unpublished Opinion.      This next case, albeit unpublished, is a very scholarly discussion of Civil Code section 1717, exploring nonsignatory and fee clause breadth issues.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

Prevailing Party: Tenant Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees As Prevailing Party Where Landlord Got To Obtain Some Of A Security Deposit And Tenant Obtained Some Of The Security Deposit

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

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

Civil Code Section 1717: Ninth Circuit Holds Tenants Winning On Preemption Issue Entitled To Fees Because Issue Arose “On The Contract”

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Preemption, Cases: Section 1717

  Federal Court of Appeals Sustains $180,029.50 Fee Award to Tenants.      In Barrientos v. 1801-182 Morton LLC, Case No. 07-56697 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2009) (certified for publication), tenants won summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief with respect to illegal notices of eviction served by a landlord arguing that Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance

Civil Code Section 1717: Victorious Defendant In Case Involving Promissory Note Entitled To Fees, Even Though Foreclosure Contemplated Further Action—Prevailing Party Status Established Where Plaintiff Allowed Foreclosure Remedy To Lapse

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  First District, Division 2 Deals With Interesting Finality Issue With Respect to Prevailing Party Status.      The interesting (and fun) part of this blog is reviewing unpublished decisions that actually confront very challenging issues arising from the array of procedural twists that can (and do) occur in civil litigation.     The next one deals

Voluntary Dismissal Of Tort Claims: Be Careful—If Contract Clause Allows For Recovery, You May Not Seek Refuge Under Santisas

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 1 Affirms Fee Award to Broker Under Broadly Worded CAR Form Agreement.      Under Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998), a voluntary dismissal will end fee exposure on contract claims. However, there is a hitch (usually is). The dismissal will not necessarily insulate against fee exposure for tort or noncontract claims.

Consumer Statutes And Requests For Admissions: Court Of Appeal Denies Unfair Competition Defendants’ Request For Fees Under Section 17200 Or Under RFA Sanctions Statute

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 1717

No Basis For Fees Based On Defensed Claims; No Abuse of Discretion in Denying RFA Sanctions.       In Chichi v. Ennen, Case No. D053410 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 18, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiffs brought a class action under California’s unfair competition statute based on violations of several other California statutes. After plaintiffs rested their case-in-chief

Scroll to Top