Can’t Make It Up, With A Nonsignatory Being Entitled to Fees Had The Other Side Won Against The Nonsignatory.
You really cannot make up some of the decisions we post on. Ehiemenonye v. Escobar, Case No. B285915 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 23, 2019) (unpublished) clearly falls in this category.
As unbelievable as it sounds, this case stemmed from plaintiff’s failure to pay a $515 balance on her account which resulted in her not being able to claim some vehicles being shipped from Nigeria. Then, litigation ensued, with plaintiff not prevailing against various defendants, some of whom were parties to an invoice with an attorney’s fees clause and one of which was a nonsignatory (although plaintiff sued as if the nonsignatory was a contractual party). Plaintiff lost, was denied attorney’s fees, and was hit with a fee award of $50,858.50 as against some prevailing defendants.
The judgment and fee award were affirmed on appeal.
Plaintiff’s argument that she was entitled to private attorney general fees for vindicating a public interest for forcing certain defendants to revive their corporate status did not resonate at all. After all, this was a private dispute—that argument did not even get to first base.
The problem with the attack on the defense fee award was simple: there was an invoice with an attorney’s fees clause. With respect to one nonsignatory defendant, plaintiff sued it under the theory that it was a contractual party. Plaintiff lost that argument such that Civil Code section 1717 reciprocity principles supported the fee award. (Hyduke’s Valley Motors v. Lobel Financial Corp., 189 Cal.App.4th 430, 435 (2010).)