Cases: Settlement

Prevailing Party, Section 1717, Settlement: “Dismissal Pursuant To A Settlement Of The Case” Language In Civil Code Section 1717 Does Not Encompass Settlement With CCP § 664.6 Jurisdiction and Attorney’s Fees Clause Covering Post-Settlement Efforts

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

Appellant’s Construction Would Thwart Settlement Efforts.             Appellant in Wash v. Wash, Case No. F077486 (5th Dist. Mar. 11, 2021) (unpublished) earlier appealed an order enforcing a settlement agreement with a contractual fees clause, an appeal that he lost.  Respondent requested appellate fees of $18,216.98, with the trial judge awarding $9,321 against appellant.  Although the fee […]

Consumer Statutes, Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: $65,000 Attorney’s Fees Award And $7,987.40 Costs Award Under Lemon Law Settlement Stipulation Are Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement

Lower Court Properly Harmonized Seemingly Conflicting Terms Of Settlement Stipulation.             In Boykin v. Premier Universal, Inc., Case No. F078689 (5th Dist. Dec. 17, 2020) (unpublished), the parties settled a lemon law case, but reserved the issue of recovery of attorney’s fees for a subsequent motion.  The problem was that the settlement stipulation had conflicting

Section 1717, Settlement: Settlement Agreement Silent As To Allocation Of Attorney’s Fees/Costs Did Not Bar Section 1717 Fee Recovery By Prevailing Alter Ego Defendant

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

$15,806.50 Fee Recovery Affirmed, Plus Fees/Costs On Appeal.             The next case shows how one needs to make fees/costs recovery explicit under a settlement agreement; if not, a later prevailing party not involved may get attorney’s fees and costs.            In J Sylvester Construction, Inc. v. Standeford, Case No. G057337 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan.

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar, Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717, Settlement: Reasonable Discretion Exercised In Awarding Defendant Only 20% Of Requested $177,712 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

The Legal Principles Of Civil Code Section 1717 and Santisas Governed.             Both parties appealed the fee results in Rusnak/South Bay v. Glukel Group, Case No. B286513 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2019) involving a dispute between landlord and tenant – with tenant plaintiff advancing contract and tort claims against landlord.         

Liens For Attorney’s Fees, Settlement: Judgment Creditor’s Settlement And Release Of Judgment Debtor Did Not Release Interference Claims Against Judgment Creditor’s Attorney Obtaining Judgment Against Judgment Debtor

Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Settlement

Interference Claim Was Righteous And Not Released By Judgment Debtor’s Unilateral Settlement With Judgment Creditor.             Mancini & Associates v. Schwetz, Case No. B290498 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 4, 2019) (published) goes to show you that a client/judgment creditor has no ability to unilaterally release claims that client’s attorney has against a third-party judgment

Settlement: 2/4 Cal Court Of Appeal Holds That Stipulated Judgment Is An Unenforceable Penalty

Cases: Settlement

And The Court Explains How The Stipulated Judgment Could Have Been Structured So As To Be Enforceable.         "The principal issue in this appeal is whether the stipulated judgment constitutes an unenforceable penalty." Red & White Distribution, LLC, et al. v. Osteroid Enterprises, LLC and cross-complaint, B291188 (2/4  8/9/19) (Currey, Manella, Willhite).  Here, "the parties

Settlement: Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals Affirms $10,875 Fee Award To FDCPA/FCRA Prevailing Plaintiff Who Requested $187,410 In Fees But Won Only $1,000 In Damages

Cases: Settlement

Rejection Of FRCP 68 Offers And Unnecessary Running Up Of Fees Sustained The District Judge’s Conclusion Below.             This next case is a cautionary warning for all litigants and their attorneys—settlement is sometimes the only reasonable option when the defense makes every effort to do so.  Here are the beginning two sentences of the opinion

Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: No Abuse of Discretion And No Error By Trial Court In Finding The Parties’ Settlement Agreement Valid And In Awarding Attorney Fees Of $83,340.22 To Defendants For Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement

Plaintiff Hit With Attorney Fees Provision In Valid Settlement Agreement After Unsuccessfully Attempting To Back Out         In Martello v. Buck, Case No. B285001 (2d Dist., Div. 1 March 1, 2019) (unpublished), Plaintiff Doctor sued Defendants Patient husband and his wife for defamation, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after Defendants expressed dissatisfaction with

Section 998, Settlement: Vagaries In Acceptance By Offeree Cannot Be Adjudication Through Motion To Enforce A Settlement Under CCP § 664.6 And CCP § 998 Before Entering Judgment

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Settlement

Entry Of Judgment Based On 998 Offer Is A Ministerial Act That Cannot Involve Adjudication Of Dispute Over 998 Acceptance—Presumably An Independent Action Was The Remedy.             In Coleman v. Sagar, Case No. B283005 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 9, 2018) (unpublished), there was a brouhaha over whether defendant properly accepted a CCP § 998

Ethics, Settlement: Attorneys, Under Settlement Agreement Of Fee Dispute With Ex-Clients, Did Not Have To Reveal Potential Legal Malpractice Claims For Purposes Of Entering Into Valid Settlement Agreement Over Fees Dispute

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Settlement

Ex-Clients Were Not Entitled To Rescind Settlement Agreement For Purported Ethical Violations.             The First District, Division 1, in Property California SCJLW One Corp. v. Leamy, Case No. A152959 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 9, 2018) (published), had to confront whether ex-clients entering into a settlement agreement over a fee dispute with their former attorneys

Scroll to Top