Neither Legal Entitlement Nor Fee Amount Arguments Prevailed On Appeal.
Plaintiff subcontractor brought a third-party beneficiary action against general contractor which was resolved adversely on res judicata and statute of limitations grounds in a situation where there was a subcontract with a contractual fees clause encompassing “actual” attorney’s fees incurred. With a few subtractions from the claimed request, the lower court awarded prevailing general contractor $70,882.50 in contractual attorney’s fees.
That result was affirmed by the Fifth District in Ayala Boring, Inc. v. HPS Mechanical, Inc., Case No. F082276 (5th Dist. Aug. 16, 2022) (unpublished). Fee entitlement was present based on the complaint allegations referencing a subcontract with a fees clause, even though in a footnote the appellate panel indicated that it was unlikely that “actual” instead of “reasonable” fees could be awarded under Civil Code section 1717. As to the amount, the award was not shocking given the detailed substantiation of hourly rates and fee work by the fee claimant.