contractual attorney fee clause in California

2014(Ibid.)” (Yuba Cypress Housing Partners, Ltd. v. Area Developers (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1081 (Yuba Cypress).) “ ‘[A] different rule applies where a contract is held unenforceable because of illegality.’ (Bovard [v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc., (1988)] 201 Cal.App.3d 832, 843 ; Geffen [v. Moss (1975)] 53 Cal.App.3d 215, 227 .) ‘A party to a contract who successfully argues its illegality stands on different ground than a party who prevails in an action on a contract by convincing the court the contract is inapplicable, invalid, nonexistent or unenforceable for reasons other than illeg

2014(Ibid.)” (Yuba Cypress Housing Partners, Ltd. v. Area Developers (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1081 (Yuba Cypress).) “ ‘[A] different rule applies where a contract is held unenforceable because of illegality.’ (Bovard [v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc., (1988)] 201 Cal.App.3d 832, 843 ; Geffen [v. Moss (1975)] 53 Cal.App.3d 215, 227 .) ‘A party to a contract who successfully argues its illegality stands on different ground than a party who prevails in an action on a contract by convincing the court the contract is inapplicable, invalid, nonexistent or unenforceable for reasons other than illeg

2014(Ibid.)” (Yuba Cypress Housing Partners, Ltd. v. Area Developers (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1081 (Yuba Cypress).) “ ‘[A] different rule applies where a contract is held unenforceable because of illegality.’ (Bovard [v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc., (1988)] 201 Cal.App.3d 832, 843 ; Geffen [v. Moss (1975)] 53 Cal.App.3d 215, 227 .) ‘A party to a contract who successfully argues its illegality stands on different ground than a party who prevails in an action on a contract by convincing the court the contract is inapplicable, invalid, nonexistent or unenforceable for reasons other than illeg

2002(Ibid.) However, as noted in Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 832 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 340 ] (hereafter Bovard) and Geffen v. *1082 Moss (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 215 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 687 , 79 A.L.R.3d 1232 ] (hereafter Geffen), “a different rule applies where a contract is held unenforceable because of illegality.” (Bovard, supra, 201 Cal.App.3d at p. 843 ; Geffen, supra, 53 Cal.App.3d at p. 227 .) “A party to a contract who successfully argues its illegality stands on different ground than a party who prevails in an action on a contract by convincing the court the contra

2022(DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com (2017) 2 Cal.5th 968, 973 (contractual fee clause); Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Assn. v. Terifaj (2004) 33 Cal.4th 73, 94 (section 5975).) “ ‘ “However, de novo review of such a trial court order is warranted where the determination of whether the criteria for an award of attorney fees and costs in this context have been satisfied amounts to statutory construction and a question of law.” ’ (Connerly v. State Personnel Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, 1175 , quoting Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 132, 142 .) In other words, ‘it is a dis

2022(DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com (2017) 2 Cal.5th 968, 973 (contractual fee clause); Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Assn. v. Terifaj (2004) 33 Cal.4th 73, 94 (section 5975).) “ ‘ “However, de novo review of such a trial court order is warranted where the determination of whether the criteria for an award of attorney fees and costs in this context have been satisfied amounts to statutory construction and a question of law.” ’ (Connerly v. State Personnel Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, 1175 , quoting Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 132, 142 .) In other words, ‘it is a dis

2015(See Scott Co. v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103 .) Whether attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, subdivision (e) can be awarded in view of Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b) is a matter we do not have to resolve. 2 BACKGROUND Plaintiff and four of his former coworkers filed suit against defendants.

2014The Merits of Defendants’ Claims for Attorney Fees A. Legal Standard and Background “A request for an award of attorney fees is entrusted to the trial court’s discretion and will not be overturned in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.] Where fees are claimed under a contract allowing for their recovery, the scope of activities for which fees may be recovered is governed by the terms of the contract.” (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 577 .) “Whet

2014(Ibid.)” (Yuba Cypress Housing Partners, Ltd. v. Area Developers (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1081 (Yuba Cypress).) “ ‘[A] different rule applies where a contract is held unenforceable because of illegality.’ (Bovard [v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc., (1988)] 201 Cal.App.3d 832, 843 ; Geffen [v. Moss (1975)] 53 Cal.App.3d 215, 227 .) ‘A party to a contract who successfully argues its illegality stands on different ground than a party who prevails in an action on a contract by convincing the court the contract is inapplicable, invalid, nonexistent or unenforceable for reasons other than illeg

2001The landlord's breach did not, in this specific case, extinguish the tenants' duty to pay the back rent accrued during the year before the fire. [1] The majority cite an unlawful detainer case, Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 619 , 111 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 517 P.2d 1168 , for the proposition that there is "a common law implied warranty of habitability in residential leases in California...." In general, I agree that a residential tenant who defeats an unlawful detainer action by asserting the landlord's breach of the implied covenant of habitability may, in addition to remaining in

2001The landlord's breach did not, in this specific case, extinguish the tenants' duty to pay the back rent accrued during the year before the fire. [1] The majority cite an unlawful detainer case, Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 619 , 111 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 517 P.2d 1168 , for the proposition that there is "a common law implied warranty of habitability in residential leases in California...." In general, I agree that a residential tenant who defeats an unlawful detainer action by asserting the landlord's breach of the implied covenant of habitability may, in addition to remaining in

1993Ordinarily attorney fees can only be awarded when the lawsuit (1) involves a claim covered by a contractual attorney fee clause (Meininger v. Larwin-Northem California, Inc. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 82 , 84 *545 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]) and (2) is between the parties to that contract (Canal- Randolph Anaheim, Inc. v. Wilkoski (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 477, 485 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 474 ]).

1993Ordinarily attorney fees can only be awarded when the lawsuit (1) involves a claim covered by a contractual attorney fee clause (Meininger v. Larwin-Northem California, Inc. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 82 , 84 *545 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 1 ]) and (2) is between the parties to that contract (Canal- Randolph Anaheim, Inc. v. Wilkoski (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 477, 485 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 474 ]).