Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV08039, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV08039 Hearing Date: April 17, 2023 Dept: 68
Preetinderjeet Singh vs. Sarbjit Singh, et al., 21STCV08039
Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Moving Party – Cross-Complainant Krishna Basnet
Responding Party – Cross-Defendant Sukpreet Singh
“(a) 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 in addition to other costs.” Civ. Code, § 1717. (Bold added.)
Moving Party’s Position
After a bench trial regarding
Cross-Complainant’s Cross-Complaint for breach of contract on January 31, 2023,
judgment was entered in Cross-Complainant’s favor in the amount of $28,330.00
on February 24, 2023.
While
Cross-Complainant had representation in the part of the litigation in which he
was a Defendant, he pursued his Cross-Complaint in pro per. Now, based on his
prevailing on his Cross-Complaint, he is requesting $12,794.24 in attorney’s
fees. Though it is difficult to tell from his motion, it appears that the
$12,794.24 that he is requesting was only incurred in his defense of the
Plaintiff’s original complaint, not in his pursuit of his Cross-Complaint
against Cross-Defendant Sukpreet Singh.
Cross-Complainant is also requesting
$13,708.40 in costs, though he has provided no verified memorandum of costs.
Finally, Cross-Complainant is
requesting that that the judgment, attorney’s fees, and costs be divided
amongst Cross-Defendant Sukpreet Singh and two other Defendants, but those
Defendants were not parties to the Cross-Complaint.
Opposing Party’s
Position
Cross-Defendant
argues that Cross-Complainant is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees
because Cross-Complainant was not represented by an attorney in his
Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant. Cross-Defendant argues that Cross-Complainant
did not incur any attorney’s fees in relation to the Cross-Complaint.
Additionally,
Cross-Defendant argues that Cross-Complainant is not entitled to recover costs
because Cross-Complainant did not serve and file a memorandum of costs within
15 days of the entry of judgment, which was filed and served on February 24,
2023. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a)(1).) Cross-Complainant did not file
this motion until March 24, 2023. Cross-Complainant has still not filed a
verified memorandum of costs. Nor has Cross-Complainant explained how he
incurred $13,708.40 in costs.
Finally,
Cross-Defendant correctly argues that Cross-Complainant is not entitled to any
recovery against the Non-Party Defendants named in Cross-Complainant’s motion.
Analysis
A
prevailing party is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees when authorized by
contract, statute, or law. (See CCP § 1033.5(a)(10); Cal. Civ. Code §
1717(a).) “To ‘incur’ a fee, of course, is to “become liable” for it [citation
omitted], i.e., to become obligated to pay it.” (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11
Cal.4th 274, 280.)
Neither
party addressed the first question. Is
there a basis in a contract for anyone to seek attorney fees? Moving party directs the Court to
nothing. Opposing party addresses
nothing.
Cross-Complainant
has requested attorney’s fees related to his judgment against Cross-Defendant
Sukpreet Singh, despite not incurring any attorney’s fees in pursuit of his
Cross-Complaint. Since Cross-Complainant did not incur any attorney’s fees for
the Cross-Complaint, he cannot be awarded any attorney’s fees for the
Cross-Complaint.
Further,
because Cross-Complainant has not filed a memorandum of costs pursuant to Cal.
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a)(1) and did not file a memorandum of costs on
time, then the Court cannot award costs in Cross-Complainant’s favor.
Order
1. Cross-Complainant’s
motion for attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED.