Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717: On Rehearing, 2/6 DCA Decides That Void Indemnity Agreement With Fees Clause In A Public Agency Contract Does Not Allow For Fees Recovery By Other Litigants

Cases: Section 1717

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). 

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: 2/4 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Denial Of $216,610 In Section 1717 Attorneys’ Fees To Prevailing Defendant Who Entered Into A Contract With Plaintiff That Contained An Attorneys’ Fees Clause

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

There Was No Basis For Section 1717 Attorneys’ Fees Because Plaintiff’s Action Was Not On The Contract, And Defendant Failed To Apportion Fees For Its Successful Cross-Complaint On The Contract.             Plaintiff retained defendant law firm to defend him in a legal malpractice lawsuit, and the parties entered into a retainer agreement which contained an

Prevailing Party, Reasonableness of Fees, Section 1717: Section 1717 Fees Award Of About $40,000 Affirmed For Plaintiff Who Had Fraud Claim Dismissed By Trial Court And Received Only A Portion Of Requested Damages After Bench Trial

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

A One-Sided Fees Provision Entitled Plaintiff To Reciprocal Prevailing Party Fees Under Section 1717, And A Trial Court’s Determination As To Reasonableness Of Fees Will Not Be Disturbed Absent A Showing That The Trial Court Is Clearly Wrong.             In Hernandez v. Thottam, Case No. B306547 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 10, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff

Section 1717: Trial Court’s Order Awarding Prevailing Plaintiff $159,792.98 In Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Affirmed On Appeal Even Though Note Providing Basis For Fees Award Was Not Formally Admitted Into Evidence

Cases: Section 1717

The Trial Court Had Effectively Admitted The Note Into Evidence As The Note Had Been Marked As Evidence, The Parties Had Elicited Testimony About It At Trial, And Neither Party Disputed Its Authenticity Or Objected To Its Admissibility.             In Amirnezhad v. Ghayam, Case No. B306361 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 4, 2022) (unpublished), defendant

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: $157,191 Fee And $7,219.60 Costs Award Under A Contractual Fees Clause Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Defendants’ Nonsignatory Status Did Not Change The Result Because Plaintiffs Would Have Been Entitled To Fees Had They Won.             Based on a broad contractual fees clause in an agreement governing a dispute over the use of large electric sign in the City of Long Beach to advertise car dealerships in the area, defendants obtained

Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 1717, Section 998: Fifth District Deals With Various Prevailing Party Issues For Costs And Fees Award To Litigants Who Both Claimed To Have Prevailed

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Plaintiff Winning Some Money Entitled To Routine Costs, But Defense Entitled To Prevailing Party Fees And Some Other Routine Costs Relating To Fee And Expert Witness Work, Some Other CCP § 998.             Mike Murphy’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Fineline Industries, Inc., Case No. F080503 (5th Dist. Apr. 13, 2022) (unpublished) is a good opinion to

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Despite Some Partial Appellate Issue Reversals, Plaintiff Water Authority Prevailed Under A Contractual Fees Clause So As To Be Entitled To Fees And Costs For Achieving Litigation Success On Important Water Rate Issues

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing On “Water Rates Not Set Pursuant To Law” Issue Drove The Conclusion.             Without going into a detailed discussion of the prolonged dispute between the parties, San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California, Case No. A162168 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 17, 2022) (unpublished) shows that a “prevailing party”

Estoppel, Section 1717: After Reversal of Prior Judgment Finding No Easement, Defendant HOA Was Properly Awarded $731,682.08 In Section 1717 Fees And $111,540.01 In Costs

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Section 1717

Judicial Estoppel Did Apply Against Plaintiffs Where They Litigated The Position That The Easement Maintenance Agreements Had Fee Clauses, And Were Awarded Fees Before Prior Reversal.             Ranch at the Falls LLC v. Indian Springs Homeowners Assn., Inc., Case No. B311278 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 10, 2022) (unpublished) demonstrates how a change of fortune

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Attorneys’ Fees Award To Prevailing Plaintiff Upheld On Appeal Despite Invalidation Of Contract Between The Parties Due To Defendants’ Fraud.

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiff’s Action Was “On The Contract” For Purposes Of Civ. Code § 1717, And Fees Provision In Parties’ Contract Was So Broad That It Allowed Award Of Fees To Prevailing Party Whether Action Was Based In Tort Or In Contract.             In Song v. Creative Global Investment, Case Nos. B299422/B301697/B304884 (2d Dist., Div. 2 February

Section 1717: Void Indemnity Provision Potentially Allowing Fee Recovery Against Public Agency Did Not Allow Fee Entitlement

Cases: Section 1717

Substantial Fees Against Public Agency Went Away For Now.             San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Com’m v. Central Coast Development Co., Case No. B304144 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 3, 2022) (published) establishes that where an indemnity provision in a public agency contract, even though potentially allowing for fee recovery, is void; there is

Scroll to Top