Legal Opinion
Khan v. Shim
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 29, 2016No. H041608PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RUSHING, P. J.
Introduction
We are asked in this appeal to examine the propriety of an award of attorney fees in a dispute between parties to a contract involving the sale of a dental practice. After plaintiff and appellant, Dr. Neeshat S. Khan (Khan), dismissed before trial her entire complaint alleging both breach of contract and tort causes of action, the trial court awarded fees to respondent and defendant, Mr. Michael Shim (Shim), for his defense against the complaint as a whole.
As we will explain, Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(2), generally bars the award of attorney…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. AlpersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Goodman v. LozanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1992
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Burkhalter Kessler Clement & George LLP v. Hamilton, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Burkhalter Kessler Clement & George, LLP v. HamiltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
- Evleshin v. MeyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
- Full Standard Properties, LLC v. SJ 6070, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2026
- Hampton v. State of CaliforniaDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.