TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Allan Law Group P.C.’s Motion to Assess Contractual Attorneys’ Fees as Costs is DENIED.

Petitioner Allan Law Group P.C. to give notice. 

REASONING

Petitioner Allan Law Group P.C. (“Petitioner”) moves the Court for an order awarding Petitioner its attorney fees and costs it incurred in petitioning this Court to confirm its arbitration award in the amount of $34,321.10 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1293.2 and the attorney fees clause in the retainer agreement with Respondents. In its reply, Petitioner revises its requested amount to $33,414.60.

On August 23, 2023, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award, thereby confirming the petition consistent with the Initial Arbitration Award dated March 29, 2023, and Order Correcting Arbitration Award dated April 21, 2023, and denying Petitioner’s request for additional attorney fees and costs on the ground the arbitrator had rejected Petitioner’s request for attorney fees and costs. The Court signed its judgment on October 2, 2023. On October 26, 2023, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, indicating that it is appealing the Court’s “order denying Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs in arbitration within order on confirmation of arb. award, notice of entry served August 31, 2023, as incorporated into and embraced by Judgment filed October 2, 2023.” On October 30, 2023, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Notice of Appeal, indicating therein that Petitioner is also appealing the aspect of the Court’s order in which it “denied or failed to make a determination of the prevailing party, as a predicate to any award of fees and costs incurred in the underlying arbitration,” which “was also incorporated into and embraced within the Judgment entered October 2, 2023.”

Petitioner now moves the Court for an order awarding Petitioners its fees and costs incurred in confirming the arbitration award on the grounds the agreement between the parties allows the recovery of such fees, and the underlying arbitration award is “more favorable” to Petitioner. Insofar as Petitioner seeks to recover fees and costs on the same basis it sought such fees and costs in its prior petition, this motion may be considered one for reconsideration, which has not been properly filed, nor has Petitioner provided any new facts, circumstances, or law to support reconsidering the prior ruling. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.)

Petitioner again relies on Business and Professions Code section 6204, subdivision (d), for an award of fees here, which provides as follows:

The party seeking a trial after arbitration shall be the prevailing party if that party obtains a judgment more favorable than that provided by the arbitration award, and in all other cases the other party shall be the prevailing party. The prevailing party may, in the discretion of the court, be entitled to an allowance for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the trial after arbitration, which allowance shall be fixed by the court. In fixing the attorney’s fees, the court shall consider the award and determinations of the arbitrators, in addition to any other relevant evidence.

As the Court stated in its prior ruling, a party may be entitled to fees where “a trial after arbitration” occurred and that party prevailed in that trial (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6204, subd. (d)), but an award of attorney fees is discretionary, as the statute states that “[t]he prevailing party may, in the discretion of the court, be entitled to an allowance for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the trial after arbitration.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6204, subd. (d).) As with the prior petition, this Court is not inclined to award attorney fees and costs where the arbitrator who was present for trial of the action and issued the award expressly found that prevailing party fees were not warranted for either party. Petitioner provides no new or different basis for awarding fees here. Even if it had, the Court would not be inclined to issue an interim award for attorney fees while the appeal is pending. Accordingly, Petitioner Allan Law Group P.C.’s Motion to Assess Contractual Attorneys’ Fees as Costs is DENIED.