Cases: Section 1717

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      The interesting (and fun) part of this blog is reviewing unpublished decisions that actually confront very challenging issues arising from the array of procedural twists that can (and do) occur in civil litigation.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       In Chichi v. Ennen, Case No. D053410 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 18, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiffs brought a class action under California’s unfair competition statute based on violations of several other California statutes.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

Civil Code Section 1717 Apportionment: Trial Court Did Not Err In Failing To Apportion Fees Where Conjoined Claims Cannot Be Separate For Fee Recovery Purposes

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 4 So Rules in Unpublished Decision.      Apportionment of attorney’s fees, as between covered and uncovered claims, is a discretionary call, as the next decision demonstrates.      Hur v. Lee, Case No. B210502 c/w BC361921 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 9, 2009) (unpublished) involved a sushi restaurant seller and his brokers, who

Corporate Dissolution: Voluntary Dissolution Action, With Only A Buy-Sell Agreement Containing a Fees Clause In the Background, Did Not Entitle Petitioning Shareholder To Fees

Cases: Section 1717

Sixth District Affirms Fee Denial by Lower Court.      As we have stated before, the first step in seeking fee recovery in California state courts is to find a firm fee “entitlement anchor,” either a contract or statute conferring the ability for a litigant to recoup attorney’s fees. In the next case, there was a

Settlement: Attorney’s Fees Awarded When Party Seeking Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement Did Not Expressly Obtain Retention Of Jurisdiction Prior To Lawsuit Dismissal

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

First District, Division 3 Highlights Pitfalls of CCP Section 664.6 in the Retention of Jurisdiction Area.      Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 concerns judicial enforcement of settlement agreements through an expeditious motion procedure. The last sentence of this provision states: “If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to

Prevailing Party: Voluntary Settlement Of Contractually-Based Claims, Even Though In Tort Or Equity, Prevents Award Of Fees Under Santisas

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Fifth District So Rules In Unpublished Decision, Rejecting That “Labels” Rather Than Substance Are Governing.       Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) [one of our Leading Cases] held that Civil Code section 1717 bars an action voluntarily dismissed as a result of a settlement to the extent contract claims were involved in the dismissed

Civil Rights: Rejected Informal Settlement Offers Can Be Used As An Indicator Of Success For Purposes of Calculating Attorney’s Fees Lodestar

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

Third Circuit Court of Appeals So Holds Under 42 U.S. C. Section 1988; California State Court Decisions Split In Analogous Areas, But Ninth Circuit Disagrees.      On July 23, 2009, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in Lohman v. Duryea Borough, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 2183056 (3d Cir. 2009), affirmed a district judge’s decision

Scroll to Top