Carrillo v. Carrillo Equities, et al.
30-2015-00765586
Defendants Robert, Raymond, and Richard Carrillo?s motion for attorney?s fees and costs is granted.
Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (a) provides in part that: ?Reasonable attorney?s fees shall be fixed by the court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit.?? Section 1717, subdivision (a) also states in relevant part: ?In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney?s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney?s fees and costs.?
Here, both sides agree that Paragraph 10.05 of the Partnership Agreement provides for attorney?s fees for the prevailing party. Paragraph 10.05 states: ?REMEDIES.? If any legal action or any arbitration or other proceedings are brought for the enforcement of this Agreement, or because of an alleged dispute, breach, or default, the successful or prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney?s fees and other costs incurred in that action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which they might be entitled.? This right for the recovery of fees and costs shall also extend to any actions for the enforcement of any statutory rights which may exist.?? Plaintiff Carin Carrillo?s claim for declaratory relief, requesting the court to determine the parties? rights and duties under the Partnership Agreement was a claim on the contract for purposes of Civil Code section 1717.? (Excess Electronixx v. Hegar Realty Corp. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 698, 707.)
Section 1717 defines a prevailing party as ?the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.? The Court is vested with broad equitable discretion in determining prevailing party within the meaning of Section 1717.? (Sears v. Baccaglio (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1136, 1152.)? Noncontractual claims are disregarded.? (See Civ. Code, ? 1717, subd. (b)(1); Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc.(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 230, 240.)? ?[I]n deciding whether there is a ?party prevailing on the contract,? the trial court is to compare the relief awarded on the contract claim or claims with the parties? demands on those same claims and their litigation objectives as disclosed by the pleadings, trial briefs, opening statements, and similar sources.?? (Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 876.)? A court, however, may not deny fees based on equitable considerations unrelated to litigation success, such as the parties? behavior during settlement negotiations or discovery.? (Id. at pp. 876-877, fn. 17.)?? Here, Defendants were the prevailing party as the court determined that the ?Agreed Value? had been determined through the minutes of the partnership.
The court must next determine the amount of reasonable attorney?s fees. Plaintiff argues that to the extent that court awards attorney fees and costs, Defendants may not recover any fees and costs associated with the two dismissed causes of action.? However, the court need not apportion when the fees were incurred for representation on an issue common to the causes of action.? (Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson(1979) 25 Cal.3d 124, 129-130.)? The court finds that Defendants? fees and costs were reasonable.? The court awards Defendants attorney fees of $187,269 and costs of $4,947.75.
Defendants shall give notice of the ruling.