Underlying Dispute Related To A Grading Of Dr. J’s 1972 Trading Card.
This next case illustrates an interesting application of attorney’s fees principles we have seen in many cases to a dispute over grading of a Dr. J trading card. Let’s get to it.
In Knafo v. Collectors Universe, Inc., Case No. G055112 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 30, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff submitted a 1972 Julius Erving (Dr. J) trading card to defendant for grading in line with the terms of a written submission agreement, also referencing a guarantee by defendant. The submission agreement contained a broad fees clause encompassing “any action to enforce the terms and condition of [the agreement] or otherwise arising under or with respect to [it].” After defendant asked plaintiff to return the card based on an incorrect “Gem Mint 10” rating, plaintiff refused to return it, provoking a complaint by plaintiff to seek the full value of the incorrect grading and defendant filed a cross-complaint seeking to obtain a return of the card for the correct rating. Defendant won on both counts, with the judgment requiring a return of the Dr. J card for correction of the Gem Mint 10 grading. Then, defendant moved for fees under the broad contractual clause, with the trial judge granting $66,103 in fees.
Plaintiff lost appeals of the merits judgment and the subsequent fee award.
The problem here was that the defense pled the submission agreement, which encompassed the guarantee, as an affirmative defense to the complaint such that fees for both defending against the complaint and prosecuting the cross-complaint were covered and were interrelated in nature.
BLOG WELCOME—We note that this case was decided by Justice Goethals, who was recently appointed to the 4/3 DCA and is among some of first decisions on the appellate bench.