Harris v. Rojas
B305848
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2021Background
- Harris leased 1,200 sq. ft. of commercial space from Rojas under a written lease that included a mutual attorney-fee clause covering fees "on account of breach or default."
- The landlord-tenant dispute was split improperly into two superior-court matters: the Burbank action (this appeal) and a separate unlawful detainer action; neither side filed the required notice of related cases.
- In the Burbank action Harris (and coplaintiff Tap’d Out) sought roughly $200,000; after a seven-day jury trial the jury awarded Harris $6,450 on a contract claim (and $500 on a negligence claim), awarded Rojas $6,450 on a negligence claim, and the court entered a net judgment in Harris’s favor for about $5,900.
- In the separate unlawful detainer case Rojas obtained a judgment for possession and roughly $13,000 (growing to over $17,000 after delay and interest) against Harris.
- Harris sought $296,744.68 in attorney fees under the lease; the trial court denied fees, holding there was no prevailing party, and Harris appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris was the prevailing party in the Burbank action for purposes of contractual attorney fees | Harris obtained a money judgment and so is the prevailing party entitled to fees | Harris’s recovery ($~6k) was negligible compared to his $200k demand; trial court may find no prevailing party | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion — the small recovery did not constitute an unqualified victory (Hsu). |
| Whether related judgments (Burbank + unlawful detainer) may be aggregated to decide who prevailed | Court should consider only the Burbank contract claims; cannot aggregate separate case results | The two cases arose from the same dispute and should be considered together; aggregation shows Rojas as net winner | Affirmed: aggregation is logical here given the related dispute and no related-case notice; combined results favor Rojas. |
| Whether Civil Code §1717 controls entitlement given the lease fee clause was mutual | Harris invokes §1717 to secure fees | The lease already provided a mutual fee remedy; §1717’s remedial function is unnecessary here | Held: §1717 is not material because the clause is already mutual; normal contract enforcement principles apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (1995) (trial court may decline fee award when an apparent victory is only partial or minor)
- DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com, 2 Cal.5th 968 (2017) (abuse of discretion standard for prevailing-party fee rulings)
- Scott Co. v. Blount, Inc., 20 Cal.4th 1103 (1999) (compare relief sought and obtained to evaluate prevailing party)
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) (purpose of Civ. Code §1717 is to ensure reciprocity where fee clauses are unilateral)
- Regency Midland Constr., Inc. v. Legendary Structures Inc., 41 Cal.App.5th 994 (2019) (trial-court discretion on prevailing-party findings supported by substantial evidence)