Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV01958, Date: 2025-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV01958    Hearing Date: March 14, 2025    Dept: 74

ADV Engineering, Inc. v. Fagiano et al.

Plaintiff ADV Engineering, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees.

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a contractual fraud dispute. 

Plaintiff ADV Engineering, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendant Stephen Fagiano (Fagiano).  Fagiano filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and cross-defendants Anu Vij and Bharti Vij (Cross-Defendants). 

The Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Fagiano.

Plaintiff now moves for attorneys’ fees.

LEGAL STANDARD

The California Code of Civil Procedure provides for attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a contract action only if the contract includes an attorney’s fees provision.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 1717.)  The “prevailing party” is the party who obtained greater relief in the action.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 1717(b)(1).)

DISCUSSION

             Plaintiff was the prevailing party in the breach of contract cause of action.  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees if the contract includes an attorney’s fees provision.  Parties entered into a contract on January 31, 2018, which provided that “[i]n any action, proceeding, or arbitration between Buyer and Seller arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing Buyer or Seller shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs from the non-prevailing Buyer or Seller except as provided in paragraph 30A.”  Paragraph 30A requests that the party pursuing the action must attempt to mediate any claims before filing suit. 

            Fagiano disputes whether Plaintiff attempted to mediate the claim before filing suit.  Plaintiff provides a declaration from Peter Holzer, Esq. (Holzer) stating that he represented Plaintiff until he closed his office in 2022.  (Holzer Decl. ¶ 4.)  Holzer provides a statement regarding a billing invoice sub-titled “Mediation re Contract Dispute w/ Business Purchase Agreement.”  (Holzer Decl. ¶ 5.)  Holzer inadvertently omitted the billing statement itself, but for the purpose of the motion, Holzer’s declaration is sufficient to find that Plaintiff’s attempted mediation.  Fagiano states that he did not receive a request to mediate.  (Fagiano Decl. ¶ 7, 10, 14.)  Fagiano was represented at the time.  (See Fagiano Decl., Ex. 1.)  Fagiano does not provide a declaration from his former attorney stating that Plaintiff did not request mediation. 

            Fagiano also alleges that neither he nor Plaintiff are parties to the contract.  The contract provides that Cross-Defendants were to acquire the business from Seller Fagiano.  Fagiano is a party as the seller.  Cross-Defendants assigned their rights to Plaintiff.  (See Statement of Decision.) 

            The Court finds that Plaintiff complied with the contractual requirements permitting recovery of attorney’s fees.

            Defendant does not challenge the reasonableness of the fees.  Plaintiff’s verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred.  (See Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.)   Therefore, the Court awards Plaintiff $124,750.00 in attorney’s fees. 

CONCLUSION

The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s fees and awards Plaintiff $124,750.00 in attorney’s fees.