Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion In Fee Award On Remand From Prior Appeal.
Barham Construction, Inc. v. City of Riverbank, Case Nos. F068373/F068914 (5th Dist. July 21, 2015) (unpublished) involved a situation where a general contractor for a skate project in Riverbank won a prior trial, with City being held responsible for three main delays in the critical path for a construction project. However, in a prior appeal, City pared it down because general contractor was found responsible for one delay—resulting in the whole megillah going back to the trial court to make some specific determinations mandated by the appellate court.
On remand, the trial court awarded general contractor $209,064 as fees on its complaint for construction contract moneys due, and $194,384 as fees on City’s cross-complaint for defective construction. Keep in mind that general contractor prevailed, after offset for the one delay, to the tune of $141,467.21 under the construction contract.
City again appealed, but to no avail. The trial judge did abide by the appellate court’s prior directives. City complained about the lack of detailed billing substantiation, but attorney declarations can satisfy the substantiation requirement. The defective construction cross-claims and breach of warranty claims were intertwined such that no apportionment was necessary.
Finally, the fee motion was timely because it was filed after all portions of the case were resolved.