Supreme Court of California

In plaintiffs' action against various defendants based on construction defects in their new house raising issues regarding the availability of attorney's fees, decision of the court of the appeals affirming the trial court's judgment is affirmed as the majority in Wakefield v. Bohlin, 145 Cal.App.4th 963 (2006), erred by misinterpreting the plain language of "net monetary recovery" and by concluding that settlement offsets do not otherwise affect whether a party has such a "net monetary recovery." Therefore, the plaintiffs here, ordered to take nothing against nonsettling defendants due to a settlement offset, did not obtain a "net monetary recovery" for purposes of the prevailing party determination.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/04/2010
• Published 02/04/2010

Judges

• CHIN, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Silverstein & Huston, Steven A. Silverstein, Mark W. Huston and Robert I. Cohen for Plaintiffs and Appellants., Stephen H. Bennett, in pro. per., as Amicus Curiae.


• For Appellees:
  
• Law Offices of Craig D. Weinstein Craig D. Weinstein; Spierer, Woodward, Corbalis & Goldberg and Stephen B. Goldberg for Defendants and Respondents.