Default Judgments: Where A Defendant Contests A Default Judgment, Successful Post-Judgment Efforts To Defeat Motion To Vacate Give Rise To Recoverable Attorney’s Fees

However, No Pre-Judgment Fees Allowed Because Plaintiff Did Not Include A Request For Fees At The Time The Default Judgment Was Entered.

            In Vincent v. Sonkey, Case No. B293251 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 29, 2020) (published), plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendants (one of whom was alleged to be an alter ego of the corporate defendant) under a lease with a contractual fees clause.  Plaintiff did not ask for fees at the time she obtained entry of the default judgment.  She then successfully resisted defense efforts to set the aside the default judgment, prompting her to move for recovery of at least $40,000 in fees under Civil Code section 1717.  The lower court denied the motion. 

            Plaintiff appealed.  The 2/6 DCA, in a 3-0 published opinion, reversed and remanded.  Plaintiff was not entitled to pre-default judgment fees, but it was legal error to deny the postjudgment efforts to uphold the default judgment where defendants made the proceeding adversarial in nature and she prevailed.  In doing so, it refused to extend Garcia v. Politis, 192 Cal.App.4^th 1474, 1479 (2011), which involved a fee forfeiture in the context of a default proceeding, to fee recovery in a fully contested post-judgment case.