McNiven

McNiven v. Dreyfus CA1/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 14, 2025A169807California2,124 words

Opinion

Opinion

Guez, J.

Filed 7/14/25 McNiven v. Dreyfus CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CAROLYN McNIVEN et al., as Trustees, etc., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents;

A169807

ANDREW SOHN,

(Alameda County Cross-defendant and Super. Ct. No. RG18918709) Respondent, v. KAREN DREYFUS et al., Defendants, Cross- complainants and Appellants.

After extensive litigation over the validity of a restrictive covenant, the trial court ordered Karen and Michael Dreyfus (the Dreyfuses) to pay Carolyn McNiven, Marion McNiven, and Andrew Sohn $927,249.19 in prevailing party attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 (undesignated statutory references are to this code). The Dreyfuses appeal, arguing the court erred in its prevailing party determination and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.