POOF!: Prevailing Plaintiff’s Appeal Of A Fee Denial Stayed Its Second Successful Effort To Have The Court Reconsider And Award Fees Of $4.479 Million, Which Meant The Second Fee Award Was Void

CCP § 916 Appellate Stay Was The Key, Meaning the Large, Subsequent Fee Award Went POOF!

               Although this may sound technical, the result in CDC San Francisco, LLC v. Critchfield Mechanical, Inc., Case No. A169224 (1^st Dist., Div. 2 May 6, 2025) (unpublished) shows how taking an appeal will stay subsequent efforts to obtain a subsequent, “turn-around” fee award where the lower court has initially denied the request.

               In this one, plaintiff hotel owner obtained an $18 million award against defendant HVAC contractor.  Plaintiff then moved for fees of over $6.718 million, a request denied by the lower court based on its interpretation of contractual fee clauses put before it.  Plaintiff then appealed the fee denial.  However, plaintiff then filed a reconsideration fee motion based on a different contractual basis, with the lower court deciding its prior determination was erroneous and entering a favorable fee award of $4.479 million to plaintiff.  Plaintiff, feeling emboldened, then dismissed its appeal of the fee denial.

               Defendant, very unhappy with the turn of events, appealed.  Smart move.

               The appellate court determined that the CCP § 916 appellate stay prevented the lower court from granting the subsequent fee reconsideration request given the pendency of the appeal of the fee denial—the fee grant order was void, citing Varian and Elsea.  It found unpersuasive plaintiff’s argument that section 916 was based on a separate contract, labeling it “a distinction without a difference” given that a section 1008 reconsideration motion is a subsequent application for the same order.  With that said, the “end result” was that the $4.479 million fee order went POOF! on appeal.