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 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 21, 2022) (unpublished), Otis Elevator was not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 Carp Property, LLC v. Corona, Case No. B316354 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 17, 2022) (unpublished) was a situation where plaintiff litigated a matter for two years where there was a contractual fees clause in an operative agreement,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
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
This Decision Has A Nice Discussion Of The Policies Underlying Civil Code Section 1717. There is a nice discussion of the policies underlying Civil Code section 1717 and the claims which trigger fee exposure under this statute in Engage BDR, LLC v. Amobee, Inc., Case No. B309263 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 7, 2022)
Lopsided Results May Make One A Prevailing Party, But The Outcome Was Mixed So The Lower Court Had Discretion To Determine No Side Prevailed. In the Civil Code section 1717 area, a prevailing party is one which has only “good news” as far as prevailing in litigation. Anything else, unless a result is overwhelmingly
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
