Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Goodman v. Lozano, No. S162655

By FindLaw Staff on February 05, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

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. 

Read Goodman v. Lozano, No. S162655 [HTML]

Read Goodman v. Lozano, No. S162655 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed February 4, 2010


Opinion by Judge Chin

For Appellant:   Silverstein & Huston, Steven A. Silverstein, Mark W. Huston and Robert I. Cohen

For Appellee:   Law Offices of Craig D. Weinstein Craig D. Weinstein; Spierer, Woodward, Corbalis & Goldberg and Stephen B. Goldberg

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard