Case Has Interesting Observations On The Necessity To File A Related Case Notice, Present An Adequate Appellate Record, And Show Common Sense As Far As Claiming To Be A Prevailing Party.
Justice Wiley has authored, on behalf of the 2/8 DCA, a colorful decision on who is a “prevailing party” for Civil Code section 1717, but also reminds readers that related case notices are mandatory, that appealing parties must provide an adequate record (including a reporter’s transcript and ample pleadings at the trial court level), that meeting litigation objectives is a pragmatic, objective test rather than a litigant’s lust for a large result, and that a prevailing party determination is not proper when one side won little or actually lost when the related case result is considered.
In Harris v. Rojas, Case No. B305848 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 20, 2021) (published), landlord and tenant got involved in a Burbank unlawful detainer action and then a Los Angeles broader damages action arising out of the lease. Tenant won $6,450 in the L.A. lease breach case although asking the jury for $200,000. However, landlord won $13,000 – $17,000, depending on interest calculations in the Burbank UD action although neither side gave a related case notice. (TAKE NOTICE, LITIGATORS, THE APPELLATE COURT WAS VERY CRITICAL THAT NEITHER SIDE GAVE THIS MANDATORY NOTICE.) Tenant then moved for contractual attorney’s fees under a bilateral fees lease clause in the amount of $296,744.68 (yes, you are not dreaming). The lower court denied the fee request, reasoning that there was no prevailing party.
Tenant appealed. Bad move. The fee denial was affirmed, producing a very interesting published appellate decision. Aside from berating both sides for not filing a related case notice, the appellate court came close to simply finding that tenant failed to provide an appellate record, given the absence of trial transcripts and many pleadings below. However, there was a pleading showing the $200,000 demand which allowed the prevailing party issue to be decided, just barely. Justice Wiley also talked about the Civil Code section 1717 “prevailing party” analysis from a litigation objective perspective, meaning that the trial judge is in a unique perspective to decide it based on dealing with the litigants both on and off the record.
However, it was easy to decide tenant was not the “prevailing party” after gaining a few thousand in damages when earlier asking for $200,000 before the jury, and secondarily, losing the war when the undisclosed Burbank UD action resulting in a judgment for landlord was factored into the ultimate results. No matter whether you considered the result in the L.A. action or considered it in tandem with the Burbank UD action, tenant did not clearly win—and probably lost the overall war in both suits. The fee denial was well justified.
Here is our favorite quote from the decision: “Litigation is a practical human endeavor, not an entertaining sport where rules can make a one-point margin into total victory. In litigation, spending great effort only to achieve little is not simple and unqualified success. Litigation is not for sport. It is to resolve disputes so everyone can return to productive activity. It always has costs, including opportunity costs.”