Cases: Section 1717

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

Neither Legal Entitlement Nor Fee Amount Arguments Prevailed On Appeal.             Plaintiff subcontractor brought a third-party beneficiary action against general contractor which was resolved adversely on res judicata and statute of limitations grounds in a situation where there was a subcontract with a contractual fees clause encompassing “actual” attorney’s fees incurred.  With a few subtractions

Premature Award Of $1.1 Million In Fees By Group Of Plaintiffs Reversed.             A group of tenant plaintiffs in Chen v. Valstock Ventures, LLC, Case No. A161885 (1st Dist., Div. 4 July 29, 2022) (published) won about $1.1 million in an interim fee award against a defendant after winning a summary adjudication motion on their

4/1 DCA Affirms Fee Award Where Pleadings Made It Clear That Redlined Draft Agreement Was The Operative Contract By Losing Plaintiff.             Plaintiff lost a demurrer without leave founded upon contractual breach, duty to negotiate in good faith, and promissory estoppel claims, a determination affirmed on appeal because the letter of intent made it clear

Section 1717 Does Not Mandate That The Alleged Contract Be Entered Into Evidence.             Civil Code section 1717 is a fee shifting statute that renders unilateral fee clauses bilateral under its mutuality-based principles.  This statute likely has the most jurisprudence of any fee shifting statute in California published and unpublished decisions.  It applies where a

Illegal Contract Was No Different Than Public Contract Void Due To Lack Of Authority.             On February 6, 2022, we posted on a case for which rehearing was granted. The case is San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Comm’n v. Central Coast Development Co., Case No. B304144 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 5, 2022) (published).