Fee Entitlement Found Missing. In Port Blue LLC v. Perlstein, Case No. B313030 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 27, 2023) (unpublished), the trial judge denied contractual fees under a note to a prevailing creditor. That result was affirmed on appeal because the rescission, money had/received, and declaratory relief claims were not based on the […]
Fee Entitlement Was Missing In This Case. In Fischer v. Ponce, Case No. B314254 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2023) (unpublished), a party obtained judgment after a demurrer was sustained without leave, a determination affirmed on appeal. The lower court then granted the prevailing party $19,468.85 in attorney’s fees. That award was reversed
One Award Reversed Because It Only Covered An Arbitration/Ensuing Litigation Even Though No Arbitration Occurred, And Other Award Overturned Because It Was Unclear That Fiduciary Breach Claim Was Not Barred By Santisas. San Jose Nihonmachi, LLC v. Miraido Corp., Case No. B323093 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 4, 2023) (unpublished) shows how the absence
Equitable Servitude in an Amended Declaration if a Contract Under Civil Code Section 1717. In DeBevoise v. Robinson, Case Nos. D078207/D078679 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 29, 2022) (unpublished), neighbors got involved in an equitable easement dispute, with plaintiffs/cross-defendants getting equitable easement relief and also obtaining a prevailing party contractual fees award under an
No Vital Public Policy Argument Presented To Prevent The Waiver Conclusion. One of the most fundamental rules of appellate advocacy is waiver. Generally, if an argument or objection is not presented at the trial court level, the appellate court will not review it. The appellate court does have discretion to review a question of
Award Was The Defense “Full Ask.” After plaintiff lost a real estate case at the trial court level, the judge awarded the defense $360,965.50 in contractual attorney’s fees, the full ask of the defense in Tri-west Homes II, LP v. Ostayan, Case No. B307708 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 21, 2022) (unpublished). The merits
It Was Irrelevant Who Paid The Fees, Law Of The Case Sustained The Award Based On Earlier Appellate Opinion, And Duty To Defend Ruling Was “On The Contract.” In Sierra Pacific Properties, Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., Case Nos. A162854 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 21, 2022) (unpublished), Otis Elevator was not
Settlement With Other Parties Did Not Impact Analysis Of Fee Reasonableness As To The Prevailing Defendant. Carp Property, LLC v. Corona, Case No. B316354 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 17, 2022) (unpublished) was a situation where plaintiff litigated a matter for two years where there was a contractual fees clause in an operative agreement,
Mandamus Was “On The Contract” Under Section 1717 And Decision Was Final To Defeat Prematurity Argument. In The Traveler Indemnity Co. v. Lara, Case No. B306897 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 3, 2022) (published), insurance company lost an Insurance Commissioner administrative mandate proceeding concerning whether certain workers compensation agreements issued to it were unenforceable vis-à-vis
After All, Defendants Did Show The Contract Was Inapplicable To Them, Such That The Hsu Decision Governed. One of our leading cases is Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863, 870 [Leading Case #2] holds that a party is entitled to Civil Code section 1717 attorney’s fees when the party prevails on grounds the contract
