California Caselaw Dictated The Result. Legendary Builders v. Grovewood Properties, Case Nos. B297299 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 5, 2021) (unpublished), although a convoluted opinion, stresses a lesson we have posted on under Civil Code section 1717—“incurred” is a term of art and can encompass pro bono, reduced efforts, and non-business compensation […]
$150,000 Was The Fee Award Affirmed In Lenders’ Favor As Prevailing Cross-Defendants. Hom v. Petrou, Case No. A161770 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 3, 2021) (published) involved a $150,000 contractual attorney’s fees award in favor of lenders obtaining a dismissal of a cross-complaint alleging primarily tort claims. The 1/4 DCA affirmed, holding that there
No Basis For Fees Under No-Contest Clause Because Trust And Its Terms Were Not Contested, And Plaintiff Forfeited Argument For Fees Under Prob. Code § 17211(b) By Not Raising It Below. In Haley v. Konatich, Case No. A160725 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 29, 2021) (unpublished), three siblings were the beneficiaries of their late
Two Separate Contracts Were At Issue – With Plaintiff Prevailing On The Asset Purchase Agreement And Defendant Prevailing On The Employment Contract. In Colaco v. Cavotec SA, Case NO. G059418 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 24, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiffs corporation and its sole shareholder/CEO entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement and Plan of Reorganization
Stay Order Was Vague And Did Not Provide Builder With Information As To How It Was Supposed To Act Or What Conduct Would Violate The Stay. In Rudisill v. California Coastal Commission, Case No. B299331 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 22, 2021) (unpublished), two residents who opposed a development project consisting of four homes
The Third District Followed The Reciprocity Principle Of § 1717 Set Forth In Reynolds Metals, MSY Trading, And 347 Group In Reversing The Fees Denial, But Affirmed Trial Court’s Denial Of Release Of Undertaking Based On Member/Partner’s Failure To Provide Notice. In Westwood Homes, Inc. v. AGCPII Villa Salerno Member, LLC, Case No. C089127
Fees Were Justified Based On Broad Contractual Fees Clause. In Peng v. F.M. Tarbell Co., Case No. B307484 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 27, 2021) (unpublished), a plaintiff—a licensed real estate agent—lost a fight on whether he was an employee, versus an independent contractor, both at a Labor Commissioner and a superior court de
Plaintiff’s Failure To Conduct Due Diligence Prior To Entering Into Commercial Lease And Failure To Mitigate Damages Once Problems Arose Left Him Upside-Down By More Than A Million Dollars When All Was Said And Done Sherwood v. Vogele, Case No. D076776 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 7, 2021) (unpublished) highlights the importance of
Invoices Submitted In Support Of Plaintiff’s § 1717 Fees Motion Were Extensively Redacted And Contained Vague Block-Billing, Which Offered The Trial Court No Way To Meaningfully Apportion Time Between Causes Of Action. After defeating defendant’s cross-claim breach of contract cause of action, plaintiff moved for Civ. Code § 1717 attorney fees of $939,600.50, which
Retainer Agreement’s Broadly-Worded Fee Provision Allowed For Recovery Of Fees For Attorney’s Defense Of All Claims By Former Client, Including Tort Claims – The Defense Of Which Were Necessary To Defeat The Contractual Claim. In Singh v. Molnar, Case No. B303366 (2d Dist., Div. 7 April 30, 2021) (unpublished), defendant attorney was awarded $1,232,735
