Trial Judge Correctly Decided Fee Entitlement Issue Which Was Left To The Court For Resolution By The Arbitrator.
In Newport Harbor Offices & Marina, LLC v. Kent A. McNaughton and Associates, Case Nos. G052704/G052984 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2017) (unpublished), landlord brought an unlawful detainer action against tenant (one of landlord’s owners) which was stayed while both owners of landlord completed a separate arbitration proceeding. The arbitrator found the tenant owner had breached the terms of the leases but determined that calculation of unlawful detainer damages, if any, would be made and ruled upon by the court. The trial judge later did assess damages for withholding rental payments to the tune of $14,283 but denied any prospective rent damages of $300,000 because tenant had exercised a contractual lease termination clause and returned possession to landlord. It also entered a judgment that had the familiar ending language “, together with costs in the amount of ___ and attorney’s fees in the amount of __.” Landlord filed a motion for fees, but the trial judge delayed the resolution because both parties appealed to the 4/3 DCA. After the prior appeals were resolved (with the results being affirmed), the trial judge considered the fee request, determining there was no prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717. Landlord appealed again.
The appellate court, in an opinion authored by Justice Thompson, affirmed. As to the argument that the arbitrator somehow did decide landlord prevailed for fees, the 4/3 panel decided that the arbitrator expressly deferred this to the trial judge and that the standard judgment language quoted above “is a fairly typical way of wording a judgment entered before the court has had an opportunity to evaluate the merits of a party’s cost and attorney fees requests” (slip opn., p. 8, meaning the language was not a merits determination). The Court of Appeal also found no infirmity in the “no prevailing party” ruling given that tenant did relinquish possession and landlord only won 5% of its total requested fees.