212 Cal. App. 4th 356
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Crusader Entertainment, LLC (now Bristol Bay Productions) and Clive Cussler and affiliated entities are in contract dispute over film rights to Sahara and a second Dirk Pitt novel.
- The May 9, 2001 contract gave Crusader an option to purchase Sahara film rights and a second novel, with $20 million due in seven installments.
- Screenplay for Sahara was approved before execution and Crusader could not modify it without Cussler’s written, sole-discretion approval; publicity and indemnity provisions existed, including an attorney fee clause.
- After disputes over screenplay changes and press statements, Sahara (2005) was released without success, and Crusader did not produce a second Dirk Pitt film.
- Crusader paid four installments totaling about $11.43 million; the remaining $8.57 million remained disputed; Crusader later deposited $5.714 million with the court.
- A 14-week trial concluded with a special verdict finding both sides breached the contract but awarded no damages, and Cussler was found to have breached the implied covenant, with Crusader awarded $5 million in damages; questions were submitted to the jury regarding Crusader’s option and the second film.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party determination for attorney fees | Cussler contends a party should be deemed prevailing if any relief was obtained on the contract | Crusader asserts it was the prevailing party under 1717 | No prevailing party; court did not abuse discretion |
| Interest on restitution from funds collected pending appeal | Cussler seeks 7% interest on restitution | Crusader argues a lower rate (1.4%) as reasonable | 7% interest proper; not an abuse of discretion |
| Costs as a matter of right under CCP 1032 | Cussler argues Crusader should not receive costs if no relief | Crusader should recover costs as prevailing party under CCP 1032(a)(4) | Crusader entitled to costs as prevailing party under CCP 1032(a)(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (Cal. 1995) (defines prevailing party; emphasizes contract-relief focus for 1717)
- Kachlon v. Markowitz, 168 Cal.App.4th 316 (Cal. App. 2008) (on-contract analysis for 1717; liberal interpretation of 'on the contract')
- Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC, 162 Cal.App.4th 858 (Cal. App. 2008) (discretion in determining prevailing party on contract)
- McLarand, Vasquez & Partners, Inc. v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn., 231 Cal.App.3d 1450 (Cal. App. 1991) (costs vs. fees distinctions; prevailing party for costs)
- de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal.App.4th 1287 (Cal. App. 2011) (distinguishes cases where relief is lopsided; applies to fees)
- Gerstein v. Smirl, 70 Cal.App.2d 238 (Cal. App. 1945) (historical rationale for costs rule)
- Sears v. Baccaglio, 60 Cal.App.4th 1136 (Cal. App. 1998) (discusses attorney fees in context of costs)