Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV04596, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 21STCV04596    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 52

Defendant Viken Chelebian’s Motion for Attorney Fees

Defendant Viken Chelebian moves for $38,947.58 in attorney fees from plaintiff O’Gara Coach Company, LLC (O’Gara).

Prevailing Party

            Defendant cannot recover attorney fees because he was not the prevailing party.  “‘Prevailing party’ includes the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.”  (CCP § 1032(a)(4).)  “Trial courts determine who is the prevailing party based on an evaluation of whether a party prevailed on a practical level. Among the factors the trial court should consider is the extent to which each party has realized its litigation objectives.”  (Regency Midland Construction, Inc. v. Legendary Structures Inc. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 994, 1000.) 

“The case law directs courts to determine the party’s litigation objectives and to see if it achieved them.”  (Harris v. Rojas (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 817, 824 (Harris).)  “Determining a party’s true litigation objective is no mean feat.  When the case is strictly about money, the litigation objective is a dollar figure.  The true value of a case is a matter of opinion, and parties normally conceal their true opinion on this vital topic.”  (Ibid.)  “Reaping merely five or six thousand dollars after spending three years pursuing $200,000 drastically falls short of the goal.  A slight recovery more resembles a tie than a win.”  (Id. at pp. 825-826.)

This case was primarily (if not strictly) about money.  Plaintiff sued defendant for damages.  Plaintiff achieved that objective by winning $28,406.56 in damages against defendant via summary adjudication.  Though this recovery was not large, plaintiff did not attempt to seek a substantially greater amount.  Plaintiff’s complaint sought damages based on the severance payment of $16,200.  (Comp., Prayer ¶ 1.)  Plaintiff recovered that amount.  Plaintiff’s complaint also sought unspecified “damages incurred by Plaintiff as a result of having to defend against the Cross-Complaint of Darren Richie in the case O’Gara Coach Company, LLC v. Richie, Darren, et al., Case Number BC683108.”  (Id., Prayer ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff recovered $12,206.56 for those damages. 

The complaint’s other prayers for damages are merely conclusory references to “other compensatory damages in an amount to make Plaintiff whole, plus punitive damages, according to proof” “general damages, according to proof,” “incidental and consequential damages according to proof,” and “punitive and statutory damages where available.”  Plaintiffs frequently include similar prayers for unspecified amounts in their complaints.  Doing so does not demonstrate that plaintiff sought significantly more than the $28,406.56 it recovered.

Moreover, plaintiff’s pursuit of damages did not result in protracted litigation.  Defendant answered on April 12, 2021.  The court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication of the first cause of action on July 18, 2022.  Plaintiff then dismissed the remaining causes of action on October 10, 2022.  Plaintiff did not pursue this case for years only to achieve a slight portion of the damages it sought.

Defendant relies on counting who prevailed on how many causes of action.  Plaintiff won damages on its first cause of action for breach of contract but voluntarily dismissed the remaining four causes of action.  Defendant, however, cites no authority for this proportional method of determining the prevailing party.  To the contrary, the United States Supreme Court has rejected “ ‘a mathematical approach comparing the total number of issues in the case with those actually prevailed upon.’  [Citation.]  Such a ratio provides little aid in determining what is a reasonable fee in light of all the relevant factors.”  (Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983) 461 U.S. 424, 435 [discussing apportionment of fees.   Similarly, in Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 413, 430-431 the court rejected the defendant’s argument that attorney fees should be apportioned because the plaintiff won only two of eight causes of action alleged.

The court rejects defendant’s argument that he is the prevailing party because he succeeded on four of the five causes of action.  Plaintiff prevailed on a practical level by winning damages.  Bringing other causes of action is a typical strategy by plaintiffs to plead alternative theories.  “ ‘A lawsuit’s ultimate purpose is to achieve actual relief from an opponent.  …  [I]f a party reaches the “sought-after destination,” then the party “prevails” regardless of the “route taken.” ’ ”  (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 571.)  If any mathematical approach is appropriate, in this case the better method is to conclude that the prevailing party is “the party with a net monetary recovery.”  (CCP § 1032(a)(4).)   Plaintiff achieved a net monetary recovery.  Plaintiff is the prevailing party.     

Sanctions

            In its opposition, plaintiff requests $5,062.50 in sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7.  This request is procedurally defective.  “A motion for sanctions under this section shall be made separately from other motions or requests.”  (CCP § 128.7(c)(1).)  Such sanctions also require 21-day safe harbor to permit the opposing party to withdraw the challenged paper.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff’s request meets neither requirement.

The court also denies plaintiff’s request for sanctions on the merits.  Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 requires attorneys to certify “that every pleading, motion or other similar paper presented to the court has merit and is not being presented for an improper purpose.”  (Li v. Majestic Industry Hills LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 585, 590.)  Three types of papers are subject to sanctions: those that are “factually frivolous (not well grounded in fact); legally frivolous (not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law); and papers interposed for an improper purpose.”  (Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 167.)  Courts may only impose sanctions for “objectively unreasonable” conduct.  (Ibid.)

Defendant’s motion was unsuccessful but not frivolous or objectively unreasonable.  Defendant made a reasonable argument that he achieved his overall litigation goals.  Achieving dismissal of four of five causes of action is a reasonable basis to conclude that defendant prevailed. 

Disposition

            Defendant Viken Chelebian’s motion for attorney fees is denied.