$1.3 Million Fee Award Affirmed; Cassim Did Not Require Allocation in Civil Code Section 1717 Context
Landlord and tenant got involved in a lease dispute resulting in a suit where both dueling contract and tort claims were pitted against each side, with tenant ultimately prevailing by winning $116,859 in lease damages and a specific performance decree against landlord. The trial court then awarded tenant $107,964.37 in costs and $1,130,042.75 (out of a requested $1,219,177.80) in fees under a lease contractual clause. Landlord appealed, primarily arguing that the trial court failed to allocate fees between contract and tort claims.
The fee recovery was affirmed in Stump’s Market, Inc. v. Plaza De Santa Fe Ltd., LLC, Case No. D059537 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 14, 2013) (unpublished).
The appellate court rejected that Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Cal.4th 780 (2004) required allocation in a Civil Code section 1717 context: Cassim only required apportionment in a Brandt setting and nothing in the majority or Justice Baxter’s opinions in Cassim suggested an overruling of Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson, 25 Cal.3d 124, 129 (1979) where no allocation is required if contract/non-contract claims have interrelated issues. That was the case in the cause before the appellate court, because the torts were recast contractual claims alleging breaches of the lease. No abuse of discretion under the circumstances.