The Chuck Olsen Co. v. F.P.D., Inc.
698 F. App'x 409
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Olsen sued F.P.D. and obtained a monetary judgment on contract claims but recovered less than the damages it originally sought.
- Olsen moved for attorneys’ fees under California Civil Code § 1717.
- F.P.D. opposed fees and cross-appealed the district court’s award of prejudgment interest to Olsen.
- District court denied Olsen’s fee motion, finding Olsen was not the prevailing party for purposes of § 1717.
- District court awarded Olsen prejudgment interest based on Olsen’s invoice rate (1.5% per month; 18% per year).
- Both parties appealed: Olsen challenged denial of fees; F.P.D. challenged the prejudgment interest award and rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Olsen) | Defendant's Argument (F.P.D.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Olsen is the "prevailing party" under Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 and therefore entitled to attorneys’ fees | Olsen argued it prevailed and should receive fees, including fees reflected on invoices not pleaded as part of the claim | F.P.D. argued Olsen was not prevailing because it recovered only part of its claimed damages and fees must be tied to contract claims as pleaded | Court affirmed denial: Olsen was not prevailing for § 1717 purposes; district court properly limited consideration to fees tied to pleaded contract claims and decline to treat partial recovery as prevailing-party status |
| Whether § 1717 analysis should consider dismissal of F.P.D.’s tort counterclaims | Olsen argued dismissals and broader litigation context should factor into fee determination | F.P.D. argued § 1717 applies only to contract-related litigation and fees | Court held § 1717 applies only to attorney fees incurred litigating contract claims; refusal to consider tort counterclaims was proper |
| Whether prejudgment interest could be awarded at the invoice rate (1.5%/month; 18%/yr) | Olsen argued the invoice’s stated interest rate justified awarding prejudgment interest at that rate | F.P.D. argued there was no evidence of a meeting of the minds on that term and the 18% rate was unreasonable | Court affirmed award: district court acted within its discretion to award prejudgment interest at the invoice rate; F.P.D.’s arguments were waived for not being raised below |
| Whether the appeal preserved arguments challenging the interest award and rate | Olsen asserted the invoice-supported rate; F.P.D. preserved challenges | F.P.D. raised claims that district court lacked basis and rate was unreasonable | Court held F.P.D.’s substantive challenges to the basis and reasonableness of the rate were waived because they were not presented to the district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. City of Sacramento, 250 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for denial of attorneys’ fees and prevailing party determinations)
- United States ex rel. Palmer Constr., Inc. v. Cal. State Elec., Inc., 940 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion review for fee rulings)
- Hsu v. Abbara, 891 P.2d 804 (Cal. 1995) (definition of prevailing party under § 1717; compare relief awarded to claims and objectives)
- Santisas v. Goodin, 951 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1998) (§ 1717 applies only to attorney fees incurred litigating contract claims, not tort/noncontract claims)
- Berkla v. Corel Corp., 302 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court has discretion to deny prevailing-party status when plaintiff recovers only part of claimed damages)
- Middle Mountain Land & Produce Inc. v. Sound Commodities Inc., 307 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion review for prejudgment interest awards and rates)
- Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 279 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2002) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)