Fee Clauses Without Prevailing Party Language Have Such A Condition Implied.
Drink Tank Ventures, LLC v. Real Soda in Real Bottles, Ltd., Case Nos. B29881/B302215 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 10, 2021) (published) is an interesting case where a “prevailing party” had its intentional interference claim reversed as a matter of law. At the lower court, where judgment was entered on this reversed claim, the trial judge granted the “then” prevailing party $280,700 in attorney’s fees based on a nondisclosure contract clause (out of a requested $785,981, based primarily on overbilling as well as denying a multiplier request). The attorney’s fees award also evaporated because of the reversal of the merits judgment. The appellate court looked at the fees clause, which did not have “prevailing clause” language, but implied it under CCP § 1021 and Civil Code $ 1717. Once what was done, based on the reversal, the fee award went POOF!
Comments