Bodero & Associates v. Gorman CA1/5
Filed 9/20/24 Bodero & Associates v. Gorman CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
BODERO & ASSOCIATES, INC., A168856 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-21-596156) JOHN GORMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant John Gorman (Defendant) challenges the attorney fee award issued in this breach of contract action. We agree that some of the fees awarded were in error, and reverse. BACKGROUND In 2020, Defendant retained plaintiff Bodero & Associates, Inc. (Plaintiff) to perform accounting and related services. The contract signed by the parties (Services Contract) included a provision for prevailing party attorney fees. In 2021, Plaintiff brought this action for breach of contract. In March 2023, the parties entered into a settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement). The Settlement Agreement provides that Defendant will pay Plaintiff $45,000 in three installments, following delivery
1
of certain records to Defendant. The Settlement Agreement further provides, “Upon any breach by [Defendant] of the payment terms . . . , [Plaintiff] shall have the right to request entry of monetary judgment in the full amount of [Defendant’s] liability, FIFTY-THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($53,000).” With respect to attorney fees, the Settlement Agreement provides: “12. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND DAMAGES. If any litigation is initiated to interpret or enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, and costs. Upon any material breach of this Agreement, the non-defaulting party shall be entitled to all resulting damages in addition to injunctive relief and/or specific performance of this Agreement. “13. EACH PARTY TO BEAR OWN FEES AND COSTS. Except in an action to enforce the terms of this Agreement, each Party to this Agreement is responsible for the payment of his or her own legal fees and expenses and any and all other sums that have been expended in connection with the Action and the claims raised in the Action.”1 Plaintiff’s lawsuit was set for a dismissal hearing in September 2023. However, in May, Plaintiff moved to enforce the Settlement Agreement, seeking judgment of $53,000. Following briefing and a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. Plaintiff subsequently moved for attorney fees, seeking fees incurred since the lawsuit was filed, “as authorized under the [Services Contract] and under the Settlement Agreement.” Defendant opposed the fee motion on multiple grounds, including that Plaintiff was not entitled to fees incurred for work other than enforcing the Settlement Agreement. The trial court
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)