Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "Lorta, et al. v. Bishop", Date: 2022-11-10 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Jacob Lorta, Daniel Velasco, Warren Little, Jorge Lopez, and Douglas Boal’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiffs Jacob Lorta, Daniel Velasco, Warren Little, Jorge Lopez, and Douglas Boal move for an award of attorneys’ fees against defendant Bishop, Inc.  For the following reasons, plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion following this court’s entry of judgment in plaintiffs’ favor in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s September 8, 2021 opinion in Lorta v. Bishop, Inc., Court of Appeal Case No. G059175.  The appellate court ruled plaintiffs were entitled to entry of judgment in the amount of $225,000 pursuant to a settlement agreement, with no credit for an earlier payment by defendant of approximately $112,000. 

With the instant motion, plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Labor Code sections 226(e) and 1194(a) and Civil Code section 1021.5 for fees incurred enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement.  Plaintiffs’ enforcement efforts included filing a motion to enforce the settlement pursuant to section 664.6, various writ proceedings related to the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s section 664.6 motion, continued litigation in the trial court while plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s ruling, further proceedings in the trial court after the court of appeal issued an alternative writ, and plaintiffs’ ultimately successful appeal of the trial court’s second ruling on plaintiffs’ section 664.6 motion.

As noted, the Court of Appeal ruled the settlement agreement between plaintiffs and defendant required defendant to pay plaintiff $225,000 with no credit for an earlier payment defendant had made.  In other words, the Court of Appeal agreed with plaintiffs’ interpretation of the parties’ settlement agreement and ordered the trial court to enter judgment on the settlement agreement in plaintiffs’ favor.  The settlement agreement plaintiffs successfully enforced states:  “Unless otherwise stated herein, each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.”  Donahoo Decl. Ex. B ¶ 7.  Plaintiffs have not identified anywhere in the agreement “otherwise stat[ing]” anything else regarding attorneys fees’ and costs.  Thus, the parties agreed each party would bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Plaintiffs’ contention the court should award attorneys’ fees pursuant to Labor Code sections 226(e) and 1194(a) and Civil Code section 1021.5 is not persuasive.  Those statutes provide for awards of attorneys’ fees to prevailing parties under certain circumstances, but plaintiffs cite no authority holding those circumstances include successfully enforcing a settlement agreement reached before adjudication of the substantive merits of plaintiffs’ claims.  Plaintiffs did not prevail on any substantive claims alleged in the underlying lawsuit.  Plaintiffs prevailed on their contention regarding the interpretation of the parties’ settlement agreement.  Plaintiffs cite no authority supporting their claim that a party may obtain an attorneys’ fees award pursuant to Labor Code sections 226(e) and 1194(a) and/or Civil Code section 1021.5 under these circumstances.

Plaintiff’ and defendant’s evidentiary objections were not material to the disposition of the motion.

Defendant to give notice.