Fourth District, Division One Rejects Judicial Estoppel Argument and Awards Fees on Appeal (to be Determined by the Trial Court). Who says that everyone in the insurance industry is cozy-cozy with each other? Not a foregone conclusion at all, especially when assertions of claims mishandling may cast aspersions on the reputation of the claims […]
Second District, Division Four Also Rejects That Letter Containing Purported CCP Section 998 Offer Was Valid Where Opposing Party Not Given Full Statutory Period Within Which to Accept. Presiding Justice Epstein, writing for a 3-0 panel of the Second District, Division Four, recently authored an interesting opinion in which attorney’s fees were not allowed
Litigant Failing to Dismiss After Losing a Demurrer With Leave May Be in Danger, Fourth District, Division Two Rules. Under Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 602, 622 (1998) [see our Leading Cases], litigants potentially exposed to fee awards under Civil Code section 1717 can avoid adverse consequences by voluntarily dismissing their actions way
Seller Hit With Fees In a Water Accumulation Concealment Case; Neighbors Obtain Fees Against Neighbors In Tree Obstruction View Case. In these interesting financial times, we find that real estate disputes still fester and produce interesting posts on attorney’s fees issues. The next two cases do not disappoint, originating from our local Santa Ana
Section 1717 Fees Are Affirmed As to Husband, Reversed and Remanded As to Wife; Home Improvement Statutory Fees Are Affirmed As to Both Husband and Wife. Talk about a wild one. If any of you readers believe that legal cases do not mimic real life, you need to read and stay tuned for our
Second District, Division Five So Holds In Unpublished Opinion. In Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 617 (1998), the California Supreme Court held that plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of a contract-based action bars a prevailing defendant from recovering attorney's fees incurred in defending the contract claims under Civil Code section 1717. The next case involves
Court of Appeal Also Affirmed Denial of Routine Costs Because Litigant Did Not Overall “Prevail.” A recent decision from the Fourth District, Division 1 is a fresh reminder of the discretion trial courts possess and legal principles they must follow in determining whether a litigant is a “prevailing party” under Civil Code section 1717
Fourth District, Division One Publishes FDIC v. Dintino. In our September 9, 2008 post, we reviewed the decision of FDIC v. Dintino. The decision held that success on noncontractual claims should not be considered when determining “prevailing party” status under Civil Code section 1717, but also indicated that work may frequently
Second District So Holds in Published Decision Relating to an Inadmissible Settlement Agreement: Civil Code section 1717 Does Not Trump the Mediation Privilege. As framed by the Second District, Division Four, the attorney’s fees portion of the case involved a question of first impression—whether attorney’s fees are recoverable under Civil Code
Second District, Division Eight Reverses Lower Court Determination Denying Fee Based on Limited Scope of Fees Clause. In enacting Civil Code section 1717, the Legislature made it abundantly clear that mutuality principles are to govern interpretation of attorney’s fees clauses such that unilaterally worded provisions are construed as reciprocal in nature.
