Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: SC127317, Date: 2024-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: SC127317, Date: 2024-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC127317 Hearing Date: August 9, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Umberto Ferri v. Devgan Enterprises, LLC Case No. SC127317

Hearing date: August 9, 2024

Cross-Defendant Arefadib’s Motion for Attorney Fees

This case involved multiple claims and cross claims alleging breaches of leases and the approved use of a retail space leased by Devgan and Devgan Enterprises for use as a restaurant. Arefadib initially leased the premises, then later subleased to Ferri. Devgan and Arefadib made claims against one another. Per the statement of decision, at trial the parties made the following claims:

Devgan v. Arefadib: Specific Performance and Breach of Contract (CACI 300)

Devgan sought indemnification from Arefadib under Arefadib’s guarantee of Ferri's lease, arguing Arefadib was responsible for Ferri’s unpaid rent. Since Ferri’s lease was found unenforceable, Arefadib's guarantee was likewise unenforceable. Devgan’s contract claims against Arefadib fail. ¿

Arefadib v. Devgan: Breach of Contract (CACI 300)

Arefadib sought damages for breach of his lease agreement for 10026 Venice. Arefadib failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Devgan breached any portion of the lease related to permitting or certificates, as the lease assigned these responsibilities to the tenant. Absent a contract provision that was violated, this cause of action failed. ¿

Arefadib v. Devgan: Fraud¿

Arefadib argued Devgan defrauded him by falsely representing he could operate a restaurant at 10026 Venice. The court found Arefadib provided no evidence of damages. This cause of action failed for lack of damages. ¿

Arefadib v. Devgan: Unfair Business Practices

Arefadib sued for unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code 17200). Arefadib did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered damages because of Devgan’s conduct, so he cannot prevail on this cause of action.

Arefadib now moves for $166,578.90 in attorney’s fees and costs under Civil Code §1717 and CCP §1033.5(a)(10)(A).

Arefadib’s request for the court to take judicial notice of a copy of the State Bar’s status page of Fari Bari Nejadpour is GRANTED under Evid Code §§ 452(c) &(h) as a record of the State Bar of California, but is not relevant to the court’s analysis or ruling.

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, including attorneys’ fees, as a matter of right. Code Civ. Proc., §§1032(a)(4), 1032(b), 1033.5. CCP section 1033.5(a)(10)(A) states that attorney’s fees authorized by contract may be recoverable. Civil Code section 1717 states that “[i]n 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(a). The prevailing party on the contract is “the party who recovered greater relief in the action on the contract” Civ. Code §1717(b)(1), lease para. 34.

When a statute, such as Code of Civ. Proc. §1717, does not explicitly define “prevailing party,” “which party, if either, prevailed in an action” is left to the discretion of the trial court. Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1128. In a case with “mixed results,” where a party receives only some of the relief sought, a court can determine, after comparing each party’s objectives to the relief awarded, that there was no prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees. Olive v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 804, 827.

Arefadib argues he is the prevailing party because the court previously ruled that the lease was illegal and unenforceable. Based on the April 22, 2022 statement of decision, summarized above, Arefadib is not the prevailing party. Arefadib successfully defeated Devgan’s claims for specific performance and breach but failed to prove his own claims against Devgan for breach of contract, unfair business practices, and fraud in the inducement. 4/22/22 Minute Order p. 14.

When neither party has obtained a “simple, unqualified victory,” the court should “compare the relief awarded on the contract claim or claims with the parties’ demands on those same claims[,]” and determine the prevailing party through “a comparison of the extent to which each party has succeeded and failed to succeed in its contentions.” Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 877.

Here, neither party substantially obtained nor defeated the relief sought. Thus, as between Arefadib and Devgan, since neither party prevailed on their respective causes of action alleged, Arefadib is not a prevailing party and is not entitled to prevailing party damages. DENIED.