Second District, Division Seven Awards Fees To Broker Based On Fraud and Fees Clause in Brokerage Agreement. Normally, Civil Code section 1717 does not allow recovery for fraud counts, unless the fees clause is broadly worded. (See our category “Cases: Section 1717.”) However, practitioners should not forget that fee recovery may be possible […]
Second District, Division 7 Affirms the Breadth of Trial Court Discretion. In Pharmacie Nouvelle, Inc. v. A&G Wilshire, LLC, Case No. B199590 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 30, 2008) (unpublished), the Second District, Division 7 reminded us that the trial court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to require a prevailing party under Civil
Part 2 of 2 – We Finish Off With The Last Five Cases And An “Honorable Mention” Oh, the suspense … and the ball has not yet dropped from above Times Square. You have to go to our prior post to see the first part of this list. Here is the rest of
Who Says David Letterman Has The Only Good “Top Ten List”? Part 1 of 2: Five of the Top Ten Decisions We may not have the panache of David Lettermen, but we do offer our “Top Ten List” of 2008 attorney’s fees decisions although we have no guest star to count them off!
Second District, Division Two Affirms $269,492.50 Fee Award Against Former Attorney Under Retainer Fee Clause. A recurring theme of our website is that litigation frequently funnels (or devolves, depending on your perspective) down to which litigant wins attorney’s fees under a fee-shifting mechanism. The next case, yet again, is a classic example of how
Fourth District, Division Three Also Faces Grant/P R Burke Appeal Untimeliness Issue. Two interesting issues were raised in Presiding Justice Sills’ opinion on behalf of the Fourth District, Division Three in Kenney v. Tanforan Park Shopping Center, Case Nos. G038323 & G039372 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 15, 2008) (unpublished). The first concerns timeliness
Fourth District, Division Three Finds That Abandonment of Action Must Be Clear Before Dismissal Is Entered; With Dismissal Gone, Fee/Cost Award Is Also Reversed. California litigators frequently have heard the mantra that "cases are to be tried or heard on the merits." In line with that, there are corollary principles, such as pretrial
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
