Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Attorneys' Fees

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In a nice mirror image of Chelios v. Kaye (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 75, 80, this decision holds that since a contract is merged into the judgment on a breach of contract claim, a provision of the contract limiting attorney fee awards to $1,000 does not limit the fees that may be awarded to the prevailing plaintiff under CCP 685.040 as… Read More

Following Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 458 U.S. 371 (2013), which it holds effectively overruled Brown v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 246 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2001), this decision holds that the attorney fee and cost provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not limit a district court's normal discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) to award costs to… Read More

B&P Code 7168 allows for a fee award to the prevailing party in a suit over construction of a swimming pool but not in a suit involving other types of construction activities.  The trial court here correctly denied plaintiff's fee motion because she did not prevail on claims involving construction of the swimming pool though she did prevail on claims… Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in holding that environmental protection parties were not entitled to attorney fees against a homeowner's association under CCP 1021.5 under the Adoption of Joshua S. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 945 exception.  That exception is narrow; it applies only to parties that litigate purely private matters that happen to raise issues of public importance.  It does… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that a plaintiff homeowners association was not entitled to private attorney general fees under the catalyst theory.  To prevail on that theory, the court must find that the plaintiff's lawsuit was a material factor that contributed in a significant way to the defendant's adopting a changed plan or conduct that… Read More

Plaintiff was the first attorney defendant hired on a contingent fee basis in an underlying case.  Plaintiff properly acquired an attorney's lien on any recovery in the underlying case.  Defendant fired plaintiff and hired Williams in his stead.  Williams also acquired an attorney's lien.  After the underlying suit was favorably resolved, plaintiff sued to recover his fees from the recovery. … Read More

On federal law claims, the prevailing party may recover its attorney fees only if federal law so provides.  Here, plaintiff prevailed on claims under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.  Neither that act nor any other federal law permits an attorney fee award on such a claim.  Plaintiff could not recover fees allowed under state law, such as CCP 1021.5. … Read More

Reversing the trial court, this decision holds that plaintiff is entitled to an attorney fee award under CCP 1021.5 based on her earlier appellate victory on her claim for disability retirement benefits from CalPers.  Merely enforcing existing law or securing a published opinion doing so is not necessarily enough to show that the action conferred a substantial benefit on the… Read More

The district court erred in not awarding Apple its attorney fees under the indemnity provision of its app developer agreement.  The indemnity clause expressly required indemnity of loss and expense due to the developer's breach of an obligation or warranty, showing that the clause was intended to cover litigation between the contracting parties as well as third party claims. Read More

Following Whittlesey v. Aiello (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1221 and Terry v. Conlan (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1445, this decision affirms an order denying a trustee payment from the trust of attorney fees that the trustee incurred in defending against one putative beneficiary's suit to invalidate an amendment to the trust.  The challenge to the amendment would not, even if successful, have… Read More

Under Gov. Code 91003(a), part of the Political Reform Act of 1974, the trial court may award attorney fees to a plaintiff or defendant who prevails.  This decision holds that though the statute does not expressly so provide, to promote the Act's purpose of encouraging private litigation to enforce the act, the civil rights statutes' standard allowing the trial court… Read More

Heirs who filed a medical malpractice wrongful death suit lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of MICRA's limits on noneconomic damages (Civ. Code 3333.2) and attorney fees (B&P Code 6147).  Plaintiffs' attorney had not withdrawn or moved to withraw due to the statutory limits on attorney fees.  Moreover, there is no constitutional right to an attorney in civil litigation.  Plaintiffs… Read More

The supplementary payments provision of this contractor's CGL policy provided that if the insured contractor faced liability for personal injury or property damage pursuant to an indemnity provision in one of the insured's contracts, the insurer would pay for the insured's defense but count any recovery by the indemnitee as damages against the $1 million limit on coverage.  The supplementary… Read More

1 2 3 4 10