Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Prevailing Parties

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.

Doe v. McLaughlin, No. A161534, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 808 (Ct. App. Sep. 21, 2022)

Under CCP 1987.2, a party that moves to quash a subpoena for that party's personal identifying information may recover attorney fees upon demonstrating (i) he prevailed on the motion to quash, (ii) the underlying action arises from the party's exercise of free speech rights on the Internet, and (iii) the plaintiff in that proceeding did not make a prima facie… Read More

Cell-Crete Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. E075264, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 767 (Ct. App. Sep. 8, 2022)

This decision holds that under Civ. Code 9564 (providing for attorney fees in suits on construction surety bonds) and CCP 1032, the prevailing party is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs even if that party has been represented at no cost to that party--as here, the prevailing surety's defense was paid under by the construction contractor-principal on the bond… Read More

Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condo. Ass’n, No. A161265, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 264 (Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2022)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that neither party prevailed or was entitled to an attorney fee award under the Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code 5975(e)) or the private attorney general statute (CCP 1021.5) in this suit by a condo owner against the condo association.  Although plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction and prevailed in forcing the condo… Read More

Travis v. Brand (2021)

Gov. Code 91003 allows an attorney fee award to the prevailing party in an action seeking injunctive relief to enjoin violations or to compel compliance with the provisions of the Political Reform Act.  This case holds that the statute does not pit impecunious plaintiffs against well-healed defendants.  So, the prevailing party standard adopted in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994) 510… Read More

Waterwood Enterprises, LLC v. City of Long Beach (2020)

On claims to which Civ. Code 1717 applies (claims on a contract), the statute's definition of "prevailing party" supersedes any definition of that term in the parties' contract.  In applying the Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863 test of prevailing party, the trial court may  not consider settlement offers the parties have made either informally or under CCP 998… Read More

Domestic Linen Supply Co., Inc. v. L J T Flowers, Inc. (2020)

If a defendant unsuccessfully moves to compel arbitration of a lawsuit filed against it, the lawsuit continues in court.  So for purposes of Civ. Code 1717, the plaintiff does not become the prevailing party on the contract simply by defeating the motion to compel arbitration.  However, if not yet having been sued, a party files an independent petition to compel… Read More

Charton v. Harkey

Under CCP 1032(a), a prevailing party is entitled to a cost award even if it is united in interest with co-parties that did not prevail, but the trial court has discretion in awarding only those jointly incurred costs which were reasonably necessary to the prevailing party’s case.  Read More