Prevailing Party

Prevailing Party, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Sisters Escaping Liability To County/Receiver In State Housing Law Abatement Receivership Were Entitled To Fees Under Health & Safety Code Section 17980.7(c)(11)—They Were Prevailing Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Receivers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

More Generalized H&S Code Section 17984 Did Not Trump More Specific, Recently Enacted Statute, With Sisters Being The Parties Obtaining Their Specific Litigation Objectives Although The County Did Somewhat Prevail On More Tangential Issues. In County of Del Norte v. Britt, Case No. A173145 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 11, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion […]

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: Where Defendant Minimally Prevailed On A Declaratory Relief Claim But County Avoided $6 Million Exposure On A Negligent Misrepresentation Count, County Was Entitled To Over $800,000 In Attorney’s Fees And A Little Under $24,000 In Costs Under A Contractual Fee Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Under A Broad Contractual Fees Clause, The Lower Court Can Determine The Prevailing Party—Much To The Chagrin Of A Losing Party. We have posted for years as bloggers.  We are not judges, nor pretend to be.  But we can say certain themes prevail in many cases we have posted on: (1) broad contractual fee clauses

Prevailing Party: Where Plaintiff Through A Settlement Obtained A Rescission And Partial Restitution Of Prejudgment Interest, The Lower Court Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Under A Contractual Fees Clause Because A Mixed Result Occurred

Cases: Prevailing Party

$800,000 Fee Request Denied, With The Appellate Court Observing That The Result Could Have Gone The Other Way—But Discretion Is Involved When One Side Does Not Knock It Completely Out Of The Park. Hakim-Baba v. Desai, Case No. H050787 (6th Dist. Mar. 4, 2026) (unpublished) was a messy case where plaintiff primarily sought to rescind

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Where A Broad Contractual Fees Clause Governed Any Dispute Between The Parties, Fees For Prevailing On A Successful Forum Selection Motion in California Gave Rise To Fees Under CCP §§ 1021, 1032, And 1033.5

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717 Did Not Give Rise To Fees Based Upon DisputeSuite Opinion. This opinion highlights the importance of wording in a fees clause.  Broader language, such as “the prevailing party in any dispute or proceeding arising hereunder shall be entitled to recovery its costs and expenses incurred therein (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses),” can

Private Attorney General: Where Prior Prevailing Parties Had Their Rulings Abrogated By Legislative Action Resulting In A Reversal Of Prior Opinions, They Were Not Successful Under CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Prior Opinions In Plaintiffs’ Favor Had No Precedential Value. In Make UC A Good Neighbor et al. v. Regents of University of California, Case No. A172510 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 19, 2025) (published), the appellate court affirmed that plaintiffs were not “successful” parties for private attorney general purposes despite winning favorable appellate precedents at

Homeowner Associations: Prevailing Party HOA Properly Granted Attorney’s Fees In A Renewed Motion Where The Initial Motion Was Denied Without Prejudice

Cases: Homeowner Associations

CCP § 1008 Reconsideration Principles Did Not Govern; $95,182.75 Was The Fees/Costs Award. In Westwood Village Condominium Assn. v. Allen, Case No. A169848 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 15, 2025) (unpublished), HOA sued homeowners over alleged CC&R noise, parking, and littering violations, with HOA determining at some point that defendants cured the violations.  Based on

Employment, Prevailing Party: FEHA Plaintiff Did Not Prevail For Fee Award Purposes Where Employer Won A Same Decision Defense And No Damages Were Awarded To Plaintiff . . . .

Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

Despite Plaintiff Proving Disability Discrimination Was A Substantial Motivating Factor In The Termination Decision. Because FEHA contains a pro-plaintiff fee shifting provision, plaintiff claimed she was the prevailing party, in Jong v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Case No. B328357 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 9, 2025) (unpublished), because a jury found that disability discrimination was a

Scroll to Top