Primary Right Showed Contractual Dispute Involved.
In CT Glendale, LLC v. Liu, Case No. B241445 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 17, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained $37,612 in Civil Code section 1717 contractual fees in a litigation dispute interpreting which party owned cabinetry under a settlement agreement also containing a fees clause. Plaintiff won the overall dispute, and the defense was miffed with the fee award.
The appellate court affirmed.
On the merits, the defense--although a nonsignatory--was liable under the settlement agreement fee clause because it applied to “successors in interest” encompassing the defense. (Leach v. Home Sav. & Loan Assn., 185 Cal.App.3d 1295, 1306 (1986) [nonsignatory successor in interest bound by fees clause].) After examining the overall litigation, both the complaint and cross-complaint sought interpretation of the settlement agreement, triggering fee exposure under the fees clause. The lower court’s application of section 1717, reviewed de novo by the appellate court, was found to be correct in nature.
The amount of fees awarded, the full amount requested by plaintiff, was reasonably substantiated. Plaintiff in its reply brief presented a detailed spreadsheet chart replete with billings, billing rates, and hours of work expended by plaintiff’s attorneys. That sufficed such that the award amount was no abuse of discretion.
Comments