Fee Entitlement Justified Under Storage Contract “New Customer” Fee Clause.
Unfortunately, this next case—involving an in pro per plaintiff who looks like she was overmatched—still illustrates our Mission Statement that a small dispute, whether won or lost, can still generate fees which eclipse what is involved on the merits—something both litigants and practitioners need to keep in mind when litigating (or, hopefully, attempting to resolve) disputes with fee-shifting parts in play.
Door to Door Storage, Inc. v. Stretton, Case Nos. D061822/D062938 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 4, 2014) (unpublished) was a situation where a self-service storage company won a contractually-based dispute against an in pro per plaintiff inheriting a contract with a fee clause applicable to the prevailing party. Unfortunately, in pro per plaintiff did not defeat storage company’s complaint for unpaid storage costs and lost her cross-complaint involving many claims arising from the contract. In pro per plaintiff, in her cross-complaint, also sought reasonable attorney’s fees. Storage company won about $54,000 for storage rental fees and then was awarded $36,916.50 in fees/$700.75 in routine costs.
In pro per plaintiff’s appeal was not ultimately persuasive.
In pro per, as highlighted by her own cross-claim allegations, recognized there was a fees clause that could gore her, and it did. As far as the amount of the fee/costs awards, she could not overcome the deferential abuse of discretion standard—she failed to specifically challenge any specific requested amounts (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. CIGA, 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564 (2008)) and failed to show why the award was alarming in light of the highly-contentious/lengthy matter between the parties.
