Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party

1-25 of 270 results

JESUS GONZALEZ GARCIA VS M T SENEMAR ET AL

As the prevailing party on his breach of contract claim, Plaintiff is entitled to recover his attorneysfees and costs pursuant to the lease. Thus, in determining whether or not Plaintiff’s total recovery was more or less favorable than the CCP § 998 offer, the court must also consider Plaintiff’s pre-offer (but not post-offer) attorneysfees and costs.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2017

BENCHMARK CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS NESS DEVELOPMENT INC., ET AL

Defendants’ motions at bar seeks the following orders: (1) That Defendants are the prevailing party pursuant to C.C.P. §998; (2) Defendants be awarded their post-Offer attorneysfees totaling $60,637.50, pursuant to C.C.P. §998 and the oral agreement; (3) Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor pursuant to C.C.P. §998(e); (4) Defendants are the prevailing party as to this litigation as a whole, pursuant to Civil Code §1717 and C.C.P. §1032; (5) Defendants are awarded their prevailing party attorneys

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

NOT ONE ANIMAL HARMED VS WGA BEL VILLAGGIO III LP

Defendants rely on CC § 1717, CCP § 998, CCP § 425.16 to support their motion. None of these statutes allows for the award of attorneys' fees to Defendants in this case. CC § 1717 [Action on contract, award of attorney's fees and costs; prevailing party; deposit of amounts in insured, interest-bearing account; damages not based on contract] allows for recovery of attorneys' fees to a prevailing party "[i]n any action on a contract." This is not an "action on a contract."

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PARRISH VS. ADAPTIVE LEARNING

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR AWARD OF ATTY FEES & COSTS OF $236,415.83 FILED BY JULIE PARRISH * TENTATIVE RULING: * This Motion for Award of AttorneysFees and Costs is brought following Defendant’s acceptance of a CCP 998 offer from Plaintiff. The written offer states that Plaintiff offers to allow judgment to be taken against Defendant in the amount of $25,001. The offer is silent as to the subject of costs and attorneysfees.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

MARTINEZ VS. EATLITE ONE, INC.

Defendant is not the prevailing party and is not entitled to recover costs under CCP §998(c)(1). Plaintiff’s Motion for AttorneysFees is GRANTED in the amount of $75,750. Plaintiff is the prevailing party and is entitled to an award of both pre- and post-CCP §998 costs, including reasonable attorneysfees. Heritage Engineering Const., Inc. v. City of Industry (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1439-1440. The amount of $75,750 is for both pre- and post-CCP §998 attorneysfees.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2017

TIMED OUT LLC VS 13359 CORP

The court therefore finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party under Civ. Code § 3344. Having found Plaintiff is the prevailing party under Civil Code § 3344, it is undisputed that Plaintiff is entitled to its fees and costs incurred prior to the Defendant’s 998 offer. (C.C.P. § 998(c)(1); Scott Co. of California v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1112.) The parties debate whether Defendant’s 998 offer is valid.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2016

STEPHEN GREGORY VS FORD MORTOR COMPANY

Plaintiff now seeks $41,090 in attorneysfees, $20,545 as a .5 fee multiplier, and $13,962.99 in costs and expenses. As the prevailing party, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable fees, costs, and expenses. (Civ. Code § 1794(d).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2018

MARTINEZ VS EATLITE ONE INC

(1) Plaintiff Samantha Martinez’s motion for attorneysfees is GRANTED in the amount of $60,000.00. (2) Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant Eatlite One, Inc.’s (“Eatlite”) memorandum of costs or to tax costs is GRANTED. (3) Eatlite’s motion to strike or tax costs is DENIED. Plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of $4,095.07. Plaintiff is the prevailing party and is entitled to an award of both pre- and post-CCP § 998 costs, including reasonable attorneysfees. (Heritage Engineering Const., Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2017

LINDSAY, SHIRLEY VS S. GREENRIDGE PROPERTIES, LLC

Plaintiff was therefore not the prevailing party and not entitled to fees. Opp. to Pl.’s Mt. for Atty’s Fees at p. 6. DISCUSSION Legal Standards C.C.P. § 1021 states that the measure and mode of attorneysfees are left to the agreement of the parties except as attorneysfees are specifically provided for by statute. C.C.P. § 1021. The Unruh Civil Rights Act allows for the recovery of attorneysfees. Civ. Code § 52.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAMES YUN VS. KLF LOGISTICS, INC., ET. AL.

The pre-offer attorneysfees and allowable costs surpass the C.C.P. § 998 offer as to KLF. Yun exceeded the offer as to both defendants. Neither Fenix nor KLF may seek their post-offer C.C.P. § 998 costs, and Yun is not prevented from seeking his post-offer costs and attorneysfees from KLF. Plaintiff contends he is the prevailing party as against Fenix because he surpassed the offer.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LISA LARES VS FCA US LLC

Proc. § 998 (“§ 998 offer”); the parties agree that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter and that Defendant will pay Plaintiff’s attorneysfees, costs, and expenses pursuant to a noticed motion. Per the § 998 offer, Defendant agrees to pay Plaintiff $75,000, which represents a full statutory buyback of the subject vehicle and a civil penalty.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2018

ADAMS VS NEWPORT CREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

A plaintiff is entitled to recover preoffer costs as the prevailing party (CCP § 1032; 998(c)(1)), and a defendant is entitled under § 998 to postoffer costs (CCP § 998(c)(1).) (See also Scott Co. of Calif. v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1110.) In this case, the Association made a § 998 offer to Plaintiff that included a waiver of its judgment against Plaintiff in the amount of $89,705.15, which also has been accruing post-judgment interest since 10/26/12. (09/02/16 Burns Decl. Exh E.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2016

LIPNER VS IGO MEDICAL GROUP AMC

A prevailing party is "a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant." Code Civ. Proc. §1032(a)(4). "[A] prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover allowable costs in any action or proceeding. Code Civ. Proc. §1032(b). CCP §1033.5 sets forth the items allowable as costs under section 1032. This includes "[f]ees of expert witnesses ordered by the court." Code Civ. Proc. §1333.5(a)(8).

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

The "prevailing party has the burden of showing that the fees incurred were reasonably necessary." (Id. at 817-818.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

The "prevailing party has the burden of showing that the fees incurred were reasonably necessary." (Id. at 817-818.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CESAR STEVE BELTRAN VS FCA US LLC ET AL

Proc. § 998 (“§ 998 offer”); the parties agree that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter and that Defendants will pay Plaintiff’s attorneysfees pursuant to a noticed motion. Per the § 998 offer, Defendants agree to pay Plaintiff $40,000, which includes some amount in civil penalties. Plaintiff now seeks $66,915 in fees and $33,457.50 as a 1.5 fee multiplier.[1] As the prevailing party, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable fees and costs. (Civ. Code § 1794(d).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2018

MCFARLAND V. UDR HARBOR GREENS, L.P.

1) Motion for Attorney Fees 2) Motion to Strike or Tax Costs 3) Motion to Tax Costs Motion #1: Defendant’s Motion for AttorneysFees The Motion by Defendant UDR Harbor Greens, L.P. for costs and attorneysfees is denied. For the reasons discussed below in connection with the parties’ motions to strike and tax costs, Defendant’s 998 offer was not valid, so Defendant is not prevailing party entitled to costs by virtue of Plaintiff’s failure to accept the 998 offer.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2018

MONTOYA VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Under the facts of this case, Plaintiff was not the prevailing party. On August 28, 2017, Defendant served a CCP § 998 offer to compromise this matter for “$228,500 in restitution and other damages” and reasonable attorneysfees. Plaintiff refused that offer and proceeded to trial where he lost on most of his claims but was awarded $58,880.37 on a single claim of breach of implied warranty.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

HICKS VS ALLADAWI

Alladawi served his Offer to Compromise to both plaintiffs Hicks and Condos offering $20,000.01 inclusive of all costs and attorneysfees, as full and final settlement of all of their claims against Defendant Michael Alladawi, including any claims for costs and/or attorneysfees. Validity of Section 998 Offer The offeror of a § 998 Offer has the burden of establishing the validity and certainty of the offer such as to comply with the requirements of section 998. Taing v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

FELICIA MICHEL V. CRAIG JONES

Because the note has a clause allowing an award of attorneysfees to a prevailing party in an action to enforce it, plaintiff is therefore entitled to fees.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2013

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DANE LEWIS VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Proc. § 998 (“§ 998 offer”); the parties agree that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter and that Defendant will pay Plaintiff’s attorneysfees, costs, and expenses pursuant to a noticed motion. Per the § 998 offer, Defendant agrees to pay Plaintiff $34,885.50 which represents reimbursement for the subject vehicle as well as consequential damages. Plaintiff now seeks $74,312.50 in attorneysfees and $3,840.45 in costs and expenses.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2018

MIKE MURPHY ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. FINELINE INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.

Defendants’ Motion to Be Deemed Prevailing Party for AttorneysFees and Costs Defendants’ motion to be deemed prevailing party pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021 and 1032 and Civil Code section 1717 is GRANTED. Upon review of the parties supplemental briefing, the Court concludes Defendants are the “prevailing party” under the “mixed results” theory as set forth in Scott Co. of California v. Blount Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103.

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • County

    Merced County, CA

YOLANDA CAZARES VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Proc. § 998 (“§ 998 offer”); the parties agree that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter and that Defendant will pay Plaintiff’s attorneysfees, costs, and expenses pursuant to a noticed motion. Per the § 998 offer, Defendant agrees to pay Plaintiff $82,800, which represents a full statutory buyback of the subject vehicle, incidental and consequential damages, and a civil penalty.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2018

AFONT VS. TWIN HILL ACQUISITION COMPANY, INC.

Afont concedes that Defendant is the prevailing party, and “a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (CCP § 1032(b).) While Afont does not cite to Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, her argument appears to be based on that case. There, the appellate court considered the nature and extent of an award for expert fees under CCP § 998 with respect to an FEHA claim between an employee and employer.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2016

LNSU #1 LLC VS. THERESE MCLAUGHLIN

Since this action is governed by Civil Code section 5145, defendants are unable to recover any attorneys' fees. Section 5145 only authorizes a prevailing member to recover fees, not a defendant association, unless the court considers plaintiffs' action frivolous. (Cal. Civ. §5145. subd. (b).) Plaintiffs are the prevailing party.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 11     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.