Sentences with phrase «civil code section»

The Appellate Court then reasoned as follows: «Patel bases his argument on the common law principle codified in Civil Code section 829 which states that «the owner of land has the right to the surface and to everything permanently situated beneath or above it.»»

Under Civil Code section 2079.13, subdivision (b), the duty the listing agent owed to seller, or any buyer, was equivalent to the duty owed to that party by Broker CB.

That part of the California Civil Code section reads:

If you are an individual on whom a SmartStart client has requested a background screening investigation, and have submitted personal information to SmartStart at the request of such client for purposes of procuring a background report, then you can review your SmartStart file in accordance with your file disclosure rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, California Civil Code Section 1786.22 and any other applicable state laws by contacting SmartStart's Customer Service Department at [email protected].

If you are an individual on whom a HireRight client has requested a background screening investigation, and have submitted personal information to HireRight at the request of such client for purposes of procuring a background report, then you can review your HireRight file in accordance with your file disclosure rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, California Civil Code Section 1786.22 and any other applicable state laws by contacting HireRight's Customer Service Department at [email protected].

Under California Civil Code Section 1789.3, California users of the Site are entitled to the following specific consumer rights notice: The Complaint Assistance Unit of the Division of Consumer Services of the California Department of Consumer Affairs may be contacted in writing at 400 R Street, Suite 1080, Sacramento, California 95814, or by telephone at [phone] or [phone].

Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1789.3 and California Business and Professions Code Section 17538, residents of California are hereby notified of the following:

California Civil Code Section 1798.83 permits California residents to learn the identities of entities that received their personal information for marketing purposes and the categories of information disclosed.

Plaintiff obtained a default judgment of $ 25,000, plus $ 144,103 in attorney's fees under Civil Code section 3426.4 (a fee shifting statutory provision applicable in trade secret cases), and $ 16,497 in costs.

Punitive Damage Ruling Did Not Dispositively Bind Trial Judge From Awarding Fees Under Civil Code Section 3426.4.

Under California Civil Code section 3426.4, «[if] a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party.»

The lower court, based on Civil Code section 3426.4 (allowing fee - shifting to a prevailing party if a trade secret claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith), awarded $ 735,781.27 in fees to defendants — comprised of a $ 535,215 lodestar augmented by a 1.3 positive enhancement for excellent defense work.

The lower court did issue an advisory ruling that, if Civil Code section 1717 applied based on a fees clause in the contingency agreement with client, that client did prevail.

Later, the trial judge awarded landlord $ 324,533.50 in attorney's fees as the prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717 (based on a broadly - worded contractual fees clause).

Both the original lease and a settlement agreement had fees clause, so defendants moved for recovery of fees under Civil Code section 1717.

Simply put, ex-client was not the prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717 on his collateral attack action.

Civil Code section 1942.5 (g) permits a fee award to a tenant who prevails in an action for retaliatory eviction.

Tenant must have felt pretty good after winning $ 49,500 in attorney's fees under Civil Code section 1717 after Landlords voluntarily dismissed with prejudice a mixed contract / tort case after Tenant filed a summary judgment claiming that he was not a party to a leasing agreement and that his signature was forged on the document.

In the last couple of days, the appellate courts have grappled with when attorney's fees are awardable under Civil Code section 1717 when a contract is declared to be void (whether illegal or under another statutory provision).

Under Civil Code section 1717, a trial judge has wide discretion to deny attorney's fees where there are no clear, unqualified winning litigants such that the results are «mixed.»

Scoreboard «tie» approach to deciding Civil Code section 1717 «prevailing party» status rejected, with courts needing to determine if either side won their true litigation objectives for purposes of determining which party prevailed.

The subrogation claim, although potentially applicable to non-signatories, did not give rise to fee entitlement because nothing allowed cross-complainant to step in the shoes of any party to the construction loan agreement — so, if cross-complainant could not recover for fees, Bank could not either under either contractual interpretation or Civil Code section 1717 reciprocity principles.

After a prior appeal in this same case, the plaintiff sought to recover prejudg ement and appellate attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 (attorney fees provided by contract).

Unless you have a clear win under a contractual fees clause, a trial judge has discretion to determine who the prevailing party is under Civil Code section 1717.

This next case deals with contractual fee awards under Civil Code section 1717 and fees assessed against a party that lost a lis pendens expungement motion.

Surety moved for Civil Code section 1717 attorney's fees, with the trial judge awarding $ 13,985.80 in fees to surety.

The reason was that their claim was not «on the contract» under Civil Code section 1717 given that this statutory provision does not apply to fraud claims.

The trial judge then awarded $ 98,330.65 under Civil Code section 1717 to respondents.

A prevailing alter ego defendant was awarded $ 134,469.36 out of a requested $ 353,047.50 in attorney's fees based on Civil Code section 1717 and the Reynolds case [one of our Leading Cases], but was denied recovery of fees for successfully defending on a fraud claim in a multi-phased trial.

The Civil Code Section under 1714.1 in California states that legal guardians or parents are liable for «Willful Misconduct.»

The trial judge awarded guarantors $ 389,712.95 as prevailing parties under Civil Code section 1717, which made the pro-Bank, unilateral fees clause reciprocal in nature.

In fact, California Civil Code section 3342 makes the owner of a dog strictly liable for any dog bite from the moment that ownership begins.

It decided that this remedial fee - shifting statute should not be broadly interpreted by using «arising out of contract» language in Civil Code section 1717 to guide the construction of section 7168.

Continue reading «Section 1717 and Prevailing Parties: Fourth District, Division One, Rules that Civil Code Section 1717's Prevailing Party Standard, Mutuality Principle, and Reasonable Fees Standard Apply to an Attorney's Fees Provision in a Consent Decree»»

But is a Consent Decree entered by the Court the same as a contract, and is a proceeding to enforce a fee provision in a Consent Decree an «action on a contract» triggering recovery of attorney's fees under Civil Code section 1717 rules and standards?

Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4 th 274, 277 (1995), our Leading Case No. 12, bars an attorney's ability to recover for self - representation under Civil Code section 1717, which has also been extended to the SLAPP context.

Usually, a winning SLAPP defendant has to apportion fees attributable to SLAPP activities, but this decision allows the trial judge to award extra-SLAPP fees as long as the other activities were «on the contract» under Civil Code section 1717 for purposes of fee recovery in the entire litigation matter.

Although arguing Civil Code section 1717 did not allow for such an award, homeowner ignored the fact that the settlement agreement had an express provision allowing for post-judgment enforcement fee recovery based on the judgment entered as a result of the settlement.

Civil Code Section 3344.

More specifically, California Civil Code Section 2100 requires that bus carriers must exercise a reasonable degree of skill, providing everything necessary for the care of passengers.

California's Civil Code Section 3342 states: «The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regard n less of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.»

Mar. 24, 2016)-- joint opinion by Circuit Judges O'Scannlain and Ikuta as well as District Judge Burns (sitting by assignment); discussed in our Mar. 28, 2016 post: Prevailing party in bankruptcy non-dischargeability action is not entitled to recover fees under either California Civil Code section 1717 or ERISA's fee shifting provision.

Once that was determined, the rest was easy: a voluntary dismissal of contract claims, if timely, prevents Civil Code section 1717 fee exposure under the Santisas case.

The trial judge later granted a JNOV motion in HOA's favor on the nuisance claim, subsequently awarding HOA $ 707,117 as the prevailing party under Civil Code section 5975.

California Civil Code Section 3294 allows a plaintiff in a personal injury case to seek punitive damages when «the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.»

See, Civil Code Section 2338: «a principal is responsible to third persons for the negligence of his agent in the... business of the agency....»

Civil Code section 1717 fee proceedings are equitable in nature.

However, the lower court only awarded them $ 525 in fees under Civil Code section 1717.5, which allows fee recovery for book accounts.

«Construction Litigation: Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Fee Awards Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1038 and Reverses / Affirms Others Under Civil Code Section 1717 Main California Supreme Court Refuses To Depublish Bernardi Decision»

The appellate court affirmed the appeal of the postjudgment appeals ruling, finding the trial judge properly found the «gist» of the complaint / cross-claims were to enforce provisions of the governing documents on equitable theories such that plaintiff prevailed and was entitled to fees under Civil Code section 1354 (c).