Cases: Section 1717

Civil Code Section “Prevailing Party” . . . . Court Of Appeal Reverses Determination That Property Seller Getting $29.75 Million Properties Back Was Not The Winner For Fee Purposes Where Buyer Got Back $1.13 Million Deposit

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 1 Rejects “You Won One, I Won One” Scoreboard Approach to Section 1717.      This next case shows that appellate courts do indeed apply a pragmatic test when deciding whether a “prevailing party” determination rightfully gauged who obtained greater relief for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717. (For […]

Civil Code Section 1717: Absence Of Fees Clause Means One Award Reversed, While Remaining Award Was No Abuse of Discretion

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Second District, Division 8 Reinforces that Contemporaneous Time Record Submission Is Not a Fee Recovery Requirement.      This next case illustrates two important principles under Civil Code section 1717: (1) you need some fee entitlement basis—either a statute or contractual fees clause; and (2) California state law is more lenient on fee substantiation, although it

Civil Code Section 1717: Court of Appeal Reverses Fee Award Given That Neither Side Prevailed Under The Contract

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Fifth District Overturns Based on a Pragmatic Assessment of Litigation Results.      Who says that appellate courts are not pragmatic in their assessment of who prevailed for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees? That is the law after all, and the next case is an illustration of where a cause was reversed because neither side prevailed

Civil Code Section 1717: Litigants’ Failure To Be Adjudged General Partners, Although Winning A Small Quantum Meruit Award, Justified Non-prevailing Party Conclusion

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Result Was An Adverse Fee/Cost Award of Over $275,000      In Gupta v. Shue, Case No. B198449 (Apr. 30, 2009) (unpublished), both sides engaged in bitter, protracted litigation over whether each received, by assignment, a general partnership interest in a real estate limited partnership—with the limited partnership caught in the middle of the litigation. After

Civil Code Section 1717: Contractual Clause Cannot Enlarge Breadth Of Reach Of Section 1717 Recovery For Contract-Based Claims

Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 3 Reaffirms the Principle in Recent Unpublished Opinion.      Day to day, our intermediate appellate courts confront controversies involving application of Civil Code section 1717, the statutory provision that allows for enforcement of contractual fees clauses in favor of prevailing parties. However, the wording of the fees clauses themselves, for solely contractual

Civil Code Section 1717: Prevailing Nonparty to Settlement Agreement With Fees Clause Could Not Be Awarded Fees Where Enforcement Action Did Not Focus On Settlement Agreement

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Section 1717 Cannot Be “Bootstrapped” Into Fee Entitlement For Breach of Contract With No Fees Provision.      Civil Code section 1717 focuses on mutuality of remedy for enforcement of contractual attorney’s fees clauses. However, it is not a statutory dragnet to enforce an oral settlement with no fees clause or

Fee-Sharing Agreement: Defendant Clients Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Where No Fee Entitlement in Fee-Sharing Agreement

Cases: Referral Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Fees Clause in Contingency Agreement Was Inconsequential.      Earlier, in our September 21, 2008 post, we reported on Strong v. Beydoun, 166 Cal.App.4th 1398 (2008), where defendant clients owed no unjust enrichment recovery to an attorney who failed to obtain clients’ signatures to a fee-sharing agreement with clients’ other counsel.

Civil Code Section 1717: Court Of Appeal Affirms Award Of One Half Of Requested Fees Based On Tardiness of Raising Compulsory Cross-claim Waiver Issue

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Rationale Parallels Result by Different Division of Second District in Superior Property of Carson v. Regency Outdoor Advertising.      In our April 17, 2009 post, we examined Superior Property of Carson LLC v. Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc., a Second District, Division 3 unpublished decision that affirmed a substantial fee award under Civil Code section 1717,

Nearly $900,000 In Attorney’s Fees Affirmed In Billboard Litigation

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  Second District, Division 3 Finds Defendant Lessors Prevailed Despite Claim of “Triplicative” Work By Three Law Firms.      The next one is a wild one and illustrates that substantial attorney’s fees will be awarded under Civil Code section 1717 once the court determines which litigants “prevailed” by achieving their main objectives in the germane

Scroll to Top