de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)

Citation: de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
Parent Document: de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2011-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810133/de-la-cuesta-v-benham/ ↗

Full Text

1,087 chars

To the degree that Hsu left any room to wonder whether anything short of total victory by one party might still entitle that party to fees (clearly “equivocal” “mixed” and “partial” results would not so entitle), an answer was supplied four years later in Scott: No. In section 1717 entitlement matters, said Scott, there is no substitute for “complete victory.” Commenting on Hsu, the Scott court said: “When a party obtains a simple, unqualified victory by completely prevailing on or defeating all contract claims in the action and the contract contains a provision for attorney fees, section 1717 entitles the successful party to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in prosecution or defense of those claims. [(Citing Hsu, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 877.)] If neither party achieves a complete victory on all the contract claims, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine which party prevailed on the contract or whether, on balance, neither party prevailed sufficiently to justify an award of attorney fees.” (Scott, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1109, italics added.)

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text