Construction, Prevailing Party: General Contractor Plaintiff Prevailing In Litigation Matter Against Subcontractor Through A Summary Judgment Motion Entitled To Contractual Fees

General Contractor Won A Positive Recovery By Keeping A $125,000 Properly Withheld Retention As Against The Sub.

            Justice Wiley of the 2/8 DCA is showing a lot of writing panache in recent opinions, with the one we now post on involving a contractual attorney’s fees issue.

            In Regency Midland Construction, Inc. v. Legendary Structures Inc., Case No. B292602 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 7, 2019) (published), a general contractor won a summary judgment in litigation against a subcontractor, with the general contractor vindicated in withholding a $125,000 retention after the subcontractor quit and contractor found a replacement sub to complete the work.  The trial judge also awarded attorney’s fees to contractor under a contractual fees clause in the parties’ construction contract.

            The lower court’s rulings were affirmed on appeal.  On the merits of the contractual interpretation ruling, the appellate court made an analogy to statutory interpretation by observing: “Felix Frankfurter repeatedly said the three rules of statutory interpretation are to read the statute, read the statute, and read the statute.  The same wise counsel applies to interpreting every text.  So we read read read the contract . . . .”  The panel vindicated the lower court’s interpretation of the retention provision.  With respect to the fees issue, contractor did realize its litigation objective on the retention withholding such that it did prevail.  Although contractor might have won less than it requested, this is relevant only in a damages-only trial where the defendant stipulates to liability, Olive v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., 30 Cal.App.4^th 804,, 822-829 (2018), not the situation before the 2/8 DCA in this matter—contractor achieved its litigation objective.