Tri Pham v. Mitra Mahmoudi

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• denying borrower’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees on the merits, but denying motion for costs without prejudice to the borrower to seek taxable costs in the appropriate court
• denying a motion for appellate attorney's fees and holding that \[a] party that prevails on its argument that -6- dismissal is required because the plaintiff lacked standing to sue upon the contract cannot recover fees based upon a provision in that same contract\
• “The plain language of section 57.105(7) has two requirements. First, the party must have prevailed. Second, the party had to be a party to the contract containing the fee provision.”
• \A party that prevails on its argument that dismissal is required because the plaintiff lacked standing to sue upon the contract cannot recover fees based upon a provision in that same contract.\
• “A party that prevails on its argument that dismissal is required because the plaintiff lacked standing to sue upon the contract cannot recover fees based upon a provision in that same contract.”
• “A party that prevails on its argument that dismissal is required because the plaintiff lacked standing to sue upon the contract cannot recover fees based upon a provision in that same contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).