This Was A Discretionary Call, Which Was Affirmed; Appellate Court Refused To Find That Appellate Fees Were Appropriate Either, With An Interesting Discussion On Why Documents Were Improperly Sealed By Trial Court With Respect to Fee Proceedings.
Although a settling plaintiff was found not be to a prevailing party for fee recovery purposes, the most interesting aspect of Hospodka v. J. Rockcliff, Inc., Case No. A153991 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 30, 2019) (unpublished) is the appellate court’s determination that sealing the settlement agreement and fee proceedings was erroneous—strongly suggesting that there was no public importance circumstance which would support this in most civil cases as it relates to fee motion pleadings.
Plaintiff sued to collect allegedly unpaid real estate commissions under an Independent Contractor Agreement with a contractual fees clause. However, during the course of the litigation, she abandoned some claims and suffered an adverse summary adjudication on a claim, leaving only one claim against defendant for breach of contract for allegedly unpaid commissions on three real properties. The parties agreed to a settlement, successfully lobbying the trial court to allow the settlement agreement and fee motion paperwork to be filed under seal. Plaintiff moved to recoup fees of $181,172.00, but the lower court denied that request based on the conclusion that she was not the prevailing party.
Plaintiff’s appeal was unsuccessful.
The 1/4 DCA first considered the sealing of records by the trial court and in the appellate court. It found that was error because the lower court did not file the standards for sealing records as set forth in CRC 2.550 and because no basis for sealing on appeal was presented under CRC 8.46(b)(2). It reasoned that generally such documents should be available to the public as with most other court records. However, it ordered the records to be unsealed 60 days after issuance of the appellate remittitur unless the parties could obtain a proper sealing order from the lower court.
With respect to the “no prevailing party” determination, plaintiff had sought more than $200,000 in damages as well as prejudgment interest and punitive damages, but she received much less under one claim under the settlement. This was hardly an unqualified win, especially given that dismissed claims can be considered as far as determining if a party prevailed (even if no fee recovery could attend to the dismissed claims). Beyond that, defendant did win some interim victories, which were also relevant to the prevailing party analysis.
However, the appellate court decided no one would recover fees for winning on appeal. The lower court determined there was no prevailing party, plus the order denying the fee motion was not an action to enforce a settlement term.