Tort Claim Defense Fees On An Unsuccessful Cross-Complaint Were Interrelated, Thus No Allocation Required; Prevailing Party Clause In Lease Applied So As To Allow Fee Recovery In Broker’s Favor.
Water Court, LLC v. Adams Wine Group, LLC, Case No. B290799 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 25, 2020) (lead appeal; unpublished) is an example of where significant attorney’s fees will be awarded and trial judge reductions affirmed where the defendant, a would-be tenant, breached a $1 million “build to suit” office lease and accompanying guaranty. Landlord eventually was awarded $1,208,032.42 after a jury verdict which was reduced a little over $500,000 through a new trial remittitur. Landlord was then awarded $943,028 in attorney’s fees under a lease fees clause, out of a requested $1,359,122.50—a 25% reduction (and a little more than the defense expert conceding that $872,441.31 was a reasonable fee award). The broker was awarded $360,520.50 in fees under a contractual paragraph in the lease.
The 2/6 DCA affirmed the fee awards after a small compensatory damage modification for “twice counted” demolition costs.
Landlord’s $943,028 fee award was proper given (1) a 25% reduction by the trial judge; (2) the guarantor making a low-ball offer to settle for $100,000 six weeks before trial, forcing Landlord to incur another $552,714 in fees/costs, and (3) the trial judge’s reduction such that the hourly rates claimed were “evened out” by the 25% haircut. The fees incurred by Landlord to successfully fight the defense counter-claims did not have to be apportioned, because they related to common core facts and related legal theories involved in the overall litigation.
Finally, the Brokers were entitled to $360,520.50 because the lease fees clause included brokers among the “prevailing party” definition, creating a tripartite contract between the lessor, lessee, and broker.