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/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (49)

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

Full Text

533 chars

The next question obviously is: How lopsided must the results be before it is an abuse of discretion not to acknowledge that one party has clearly *1296prevailed? The reason the Legislature included the discretion clause in section 1717, of course, was obviously to allow trial courts to take into account the unique facts and circumstances of each case, as reflected in the “totality” and substance language from Hsu. So we will not attempt to fashion a one-size-fits-all rule. That said, the line was crossed in the case before us.