Turner Law Firm Wins Full Attorney’s Fee Request At Trial Court Level.
We would like to thank and extend kudos to Keith Turner of the Turner Law Firm for winning an interesting attorney’s fees battle under the fee-shifting provision contained in the Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code, § 1354(c)).
His client defendant Eric Yeldell was sued by 48 plaintiff lot owners for violating the building size limitations contained in recorded CC&Rs, premised on the theory that the tract where everyone had property was a “common interest development” under the Davis-Stirling Act, which indeed contains the section 1354(c) fee-shifting provision. Los Angeles Superior Court case no CASE NB. BC398978, Judge Richard Fruin
Defendant won the lawsuit by proving that Plaintiffs were not situated in a common interest development such that the Act did not apply.
When it came time to claim attorney’s fees, Plaintiffs mainly argued that there was no fee entitlement where the Davis-Stirling Act was found inapplicable to the dispute. The defense, on the other hand, argued otherwise by analogy to Civil Code section 1717 reciprocity cases allowing recovery even where a contract is held invalid and Mechanical Wholesale Corp. v. Fuji Bank, Ltd., 42 Cal.App.4th 1647 (1996) (a stop notice case where a winner was entitled to fee recovery under the Civil Code section 3176 fee-shifting provision even though the stop notice claim was invalid, with defendant only needing to defeat the claim for fee entitlement purposes). The analogies were found persuasive by the trial court, which awarded full fees to Mr. Turner’s defendant client.
Finally, the fee motion came down to whether all 48 individual plaintiffs were at risk for the awarded fees. Yes, they were, said the lower court, given cases indicating that the general presumption is fees are a joint obligation against multiple parties and that plaintiffs were united in interest against the same defendant. (Friends of the Trails v. Blasius, 78 Cal.App.4th 810, 838 (2000); Acosta v. SI Corp., 129 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376 (2005).)
Interesting case to report on and thanks for the heads up, Keith. Also, Mr. Turner has a blog, Pacific View Rights Center blog, which can be accessed at our home page on the right hand side.