Judge Michael T. Smyth, Case Number: 37-2019-00056341-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2019-00056341-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 23, 2024

05/24/2024 09:00:00 AM C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00056341-CU-OR-CTL TRES CAMINOS LP VS MGP XI US PROPERTIES LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 10/20/2023

Defendant MGP XI US Properties, LLC's Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED in a reduced amount to be determined. The court will hear from the parties on apportionment.

Under Civil Code section 1717 fees are available when a party either brings a successful action 'on a contract' containing an attorney's fees provision or is 'sued on a contract containing a provision for attorney fees [and] defends the litigation by successfully arguing the inapplicability, invalidity, unenforceability, or nonexistence of the same contract.' (Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 611 [internal quotation marks omitted].) However, '[b]efore section 1717 comes into play, it is necessary to determine whether the contractual claims fall within the scope of the attorney fee agreement.' (Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 [quotation marks omitted].) By its plain terms, Section 1717 applies only to actions 'on a contract' and to fees 'which are incurred to enforce that agreement.' (Civ. Code, � 1717; Santisas, supra, 17 Cal.4th at 615; Excess Electronixx v. Heger Realty Corp. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 698, 708 ['section 1717 . . . makes clear that a tort claim does not 'enforce' a contract'].) Some contractual provisions may be broad enough to include noncontractual claims, however. 'If the attorney fee provision does encompass noncontractual claims, the prevailing party entitled to recover fees normally will be the party whose net recovery is greater, in the sense of most accomplishing its litigation objectives, whether or not that party prevailed on a contract cause of action.' (Maynard v. BTI Group, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 984, 991.) The relevant fee provisions state: 'In the event any legal or equitable proceeding is commenced to restrain any violation of the Declaration or this Supplemental Declaration or to enforce any restriction or provision hereof, the losing party shall pay the attorneys' fees of the prevailing party in such amount as may be fixed by the court in such proceedings.' (ROA 229, Ex. A, p. 30, � 7.3 [emphasis added].) 'In the event of the bringing of any action or suit by a party hereto against another party hereunder by reason of any breach of any of the covenants, agreements or provisions on the part of the other party arising out of this Second Supplemental Declaration or the Prior CC&Rs, then in that event the prevailing party shall be entitled to have and recover of and from the other party all costs and expenses of the action or suit, including actual attorneys' fees[.]' Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092117 15 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: TRES CAMINOS LP VS MGP XI US PROPERTIES LLC [IMAGED] 37-2019-00056341-CU-OR-CTL (ROA 229, Ex. B, p. 10, � V(B) [emphasis added].) Notably, both provisions limit fee recovery to contract claims and are not so broad as to cover noncontractual claims. (See, e.g., Maynard, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at 989.) Rather, both provisions are specifically limited to enforcing the agreement. Even if Plaintiff's tort claims involved arguments related to contract, they are not necessarily 'on a contract' for purposes of Civil Code section 1717. (See, c.f., Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 230, 240-241 [discussing scope of Section 1717].) Here, Plaintiff alleged five causes of action in their SAC: (1) declaratory relief; (2) intentional interference with contract; (3) intentional interference with economic advantage; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; and (5) breach of contract. The first and fifth causes of action, based solely on contract, were dismissed after a demurrer. For these causes of action, the court finds that Defendant is clearly entitled to its fees and costs. Further, the court finds that the breach of fiduciary duty was sufficiently based on the contracts that apportionment of that claim is not required. (Hjelm v. Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1178 ['Apportionment is not required when the claims for relief are so intertwined that it would be impracticable, if not impossible, to separate the attorney's time into compensable and noncompensable units.'].) The intentional interference claims however, were based on Defendants alleged interference with a contract between Plaintiff and third-party Becker. Those claims are not within the scope of the attorney's fees provisions relied on by the parties and Plaintiff would not have been entitled to recover attorney's fees for those causes of action had they been successful. Accordingly, fees are available only for work performed on the first, fourth, and fifth causes of action.

Having found that at least some fees are available to Defendant, the court must proceed with a lodestar analysis based on the reasonable time spent and reasonable hourly compensation for each attorney involved in the case. (Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 311, 322.) 'The magnitude of what constitutes a reasonable award of attorney fees is [] a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court.' (Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 263; see also PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1094-1095 [trial courts have broad discretion to determine the amount of reasonable fees].) The court finds that Defendant's rate is high, but not unreasonable for this litigation or out-of-step with other firms in the community.

Based on the court's decision to only allow fee recovery for work performed on the first, fourth, and fifth causes of action, the court will hear from the parties on how fees should be apportioned.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092117 15