Fee Clause Interpretation/Paralegals: Broad Fees Clause Justified $93,200 Fee Award, Inclusive Of Work By Paralegals

 

Paralegals, Even Uncertificated Ones, Are Compensable In Fee Proceedings.

     The Fourth District, Division 3, in Alcone v. SLV Associates, LLC, Case No. G051813 (4^th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 30, 2016) (unpublished), dealt with a trustee under a lease who prevailed where there was a broad “arising out of lease” fees clause. Trustee then moved to recover over $95,527.50 in fees. The lower court’s tentative was to grant most of them, but not some billed paralegal work. After some more briefing, the lower court did grant fees for the paralegal work and awarded $95,200 jointly and severally against two individual defendants signing a lease addendum.

     The losing parties’ appeal was unsuccessful, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Thompson. Our local appellate court determined that the unlawful detainer was for a holdover tenancy and was in the nature of a tort, covered under the broad fees clause. It did not have to wade into the issue pending for determination by the California Supreme Court in Mountain Air about whether a contractual affirmative defense is tantamount to an “action” for purposes of a fees clause. (See our November 21, 2014 and August 30, 2015 posts on Mountain Air.) The individuals were individually liable because they signed the lease addendum.

     With respect to paralegals, the Court of Appeal recognized that paralegal work has been recognized as compensable (Guinn v. Dotson, 23 Cal.App.4^th 262, 269 (1994)), and nothing showed that the paralegal did not meet the Business and Professions Code requirements despite being uncertificated for a period of time.