Tessie Cleveland Communityh Services v. Loghmani CA2/2

Filed 1/29/15 Tessie Cleveland Communityh Services v. Loghmani CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY B251944 SERVICES CORP., (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. TC023641)

v.

MOHSEN LOGHMANI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William B. Barry, Judge. Affirmed.

Mohsen Loghmani, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

J.J. Little & Associates, James J. Little for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

A jury returned a verdict against appellant. Following entry of judgment, the trial court ordered appellant to pay respondent’s attorney fees. Appellant appeals from the attorney fees order but makes no pertinent argument. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mohsen Loghmani, a licensed provider of contracting, professional engineering, and architectural services, entered into a number of agreements with respondent Tessie Cleveland Community Services Corp. (Tessie). In November 2011, a jury found Loghmani liable for professional negligence, misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Tessie was awarded net damages of $388,325.47. Judgment was entered on March 7, 2013. The trial court denied Loghmani’s motions for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.1 On August 6, 2013, the trial court granted Tessie’s motion for attorney fees, awarding $1,458,101.25. Loghmani’s appeal from that order is timely.2 DISCUSSION An order awarding attorney fees is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion, though the issue of whether fees are awardable by contract or otherwise is a question of law. (Chodos v. Borman (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 76, 91.) The record on appeal does not contain Tessie’s motion for attorney fees or any opposition papers, and Loghmani’s appellate brief does not contain an independent argument for overturning the attorney fees award. Instead, Loghmani argues that the trial