Contract dispute leads to award of attorney fees


In Eden Township Healthcare District v. Eden Medical Center the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District decided a dispute giving rise to an attorney fee award pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1717.  That statute is California’s reciprocal attorney fee statute.

A local Healthcare District (the “District”) was formed as a public agency to provide health care services to the local community. Eden Medical (“Eden”) operated two hospitals in the same community, Eden Hospital (“EH”) and San Leandro Hospital (“SLH”). 

The first entity, EH, had financial difficulties and consideration was given to shutting that hospital down. The District then decided to replace EH with a new facility. 

Another nonprofit, Sutter Health (“Sutter”), initially agreed to build the new hospital. Later, Sutter scrapped that plan. Then Sutter and the District entered into negotiations and entered into a series of contracts. One of those agreements purported to allow Sutter an option to purchase the second community hospital, SLH.

The agreements between the District and Sutter also included an attorney fees clause. Sutter later decided to exercise its option to buy SLH; however, the hospital was to be modified to provide specialized health care services. The District opposed that plan and it refused to allow Sutter to exercise the option.

Sutter brought a lawsuit, seeking specific performance of the agreement from the District. The District then filed a cross-complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to invalidate the agreement with Sutter. The trial court ruled in favor of Sutter and ordered the District to perform the contract and sell SLH. Sutter’s request for attorney fees was denied.

The court of appeal reversed the decision of the trial court on the fee issue. The court of appeal noted that under Civil Code Section 1717, a contract may provide for an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party in a contract dispute. Because the nonprofit was unquestionably the “prevailing party” under Section 1717, a fee award was entirely appropriate.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.