Plaintiff Received Minimal Security Deposit Award/Defendant Received One-Tenth Of Request–Result: No Unqualified Win.
During this month of December 2012, we have seen a “swell” in intermediate appellate cases deciding whether a party prevailed for purposes of recovering fees under Civil Code section 1717 (applicable to contractual fee clauses). Here is another one to add to the list of opinions weighing in on this subject.
In Glesby Bldg. Materials Co., Inc. v. 6233 San Leandro Street Partners, Case Nos. A131950/A133233 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 21, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiff sued to obtain recovery of a $10,500 security deposit and defendant cross-complained for $80,000 in damages/holdover rent. The trial court awarded plaintiff $2,411.25 on the security deposit claim, but allowed defendant/cross-complainant an “offset” of $8,088.75 on the cross-claim. Then, the lower court found that defendant prevailed for fee recovery purposes and awarded contractual fees of $52,661 (out of a requested $105,322).
This one was reversed, with the appellate court–like the jurists in the Cussler v. Crusader Entertainment opinions–focusing on the pragmatic determination of whether one side had an “unqualified win” (language from Hsu v. Abbara, one of our Leading Cases–Case No. 2). No one did, the appellate court concluded. Plaintiff recovered only a relatively small fraction of the security deposit claim, and the defense only prospered for about 1/10th of what was claimed due as damages under the lease on the cross-claim. Each go your own way, ruled the reviewing tribunal in this case.