Dalis v. Reinhard, Case No. H031637 (6th Dist. Apr. 8, 2009) (unpublished). In this one, defendant was awarded $353,607.96 in attorney’s fees when he prevailed on 12 of 13 causes of action in an action brought by a Trust upon a nonrecourse promissory note with a fees clause. Defendant did prevail, and the merits […]
Second District, Division 8 Splits on Application of the Sham Pleading Rule. Dome Entertainment Center, Inc. v. Kim, Case No. B196220 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Apr. 7, 2009) (unpublished) has an interesting discussion about the application of judicial admission and sham pleading rules in a superseded pleading context involving a litigant who claimed she
Attorney’s Fee Awards In the News—One Entertainment Case Whooper and Two Smaller Ones $14 Million Fee Award – Entertainment Dispute. Los Angeles County Superior Court produced one of the largest fee awards we know of (with a recent article on the award suggesting it is the biggest ever)–$14 million. Well-known author Clive Cussler
First District, Division 4 Believed Award Needed to Apportion Out Some Fraud Work and Take Into Account Plaintiff’s Limited Success on the Promissory Note Claims. Who says that appellate courts blindly rubberstamp fee awards by trial courts? The next case certainly demonstrates that this is not the case, with the reviewing courts making sure
Second District, Division 1 Reverses Fee Denial as Too Restrictive. We have reviewed many decisions involving interpretation of contractual fees clauses, which involve a construction of the ambit of Civil Code section 1717. In the next case, the appellate court reversed based on the determination that the lower court interpreted the scope of the
Two Second District Decisions Are Surveyed. Marriage of Kaufman, Case No. B196632 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 27, 2009) (unpublished) In this one, wife—after remarrying in a very public ceremony—was ordered to pay her former husband’s attorney’s fees of $15,000 under Family Code section 271 (out of a requested $42,000 in fees), payable in
Second District, Division 4 Applies Santisas in Affirming Denial of Fees. In our category “Leading Cases,” we have listed Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998), which held that a voluntary dismissal of contractually-based claims will not lead to fee exposure under Civil Code section 1717. However, Santisas did leave open the exception
Second District, Division 7 Finds Mutual Mistake Gave Rise to Rescission, Overturning a Landlord Win and Favorable Attorney’s Fees Award. Here is another POOF! The Second District, Division 7, in Howard v. Encino Group Retail LLC, Case No. B204865 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 18, 2009) (unpublished) reversed a summary judgment in
Second District, Division 6 Affirms Substantial Fee Award Based on “Tenaciousness” Factor. For all attorneys winning contentious real estate litigation with a contractual fees clause, you may have a good chance of recouping most of your fees on behalf of clients under Civil Code section 1717, especially where your opponent was aggressive and tenacious
First District, Division Five Follows Blickman Turkus and Sessions Decisions. This next case is a virtual paradigm for students of fees clauses in exclusive listing agreements involving MLS brokers who sue sellers and then lose. It deals with judicial estoppel and fee clause interpretation issues frequently seen in these types of disputes. Menasco
