Wolf v. Santa Rita Hills Wine Center Investors CA2/6

Filed 12/1/15 Wolf v. Santa Rita Hills Wine Center Investors CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

JEFFREY WOLF, 2d Civil No. B258797 (Super. Ct. No. 1393368) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

SANTA RITA HILLS WINE CENTER INVESTORS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Santa Rita Hills Wine Center Investors (appellant) appeals the trial court's order granting costs and attorney fees to Jeffrey Wolf (respondent) as the prevailing party in a dispute relating to an agreement for services. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in making the order. We affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant owns and operates a winery facility in Lompoc. Respondent is an electrical contractor. In 2011, the parties executed a written vendor agreement (the agreement) in which respondent agreed to install certain electrical distribution service to respondent in exchange for a total payment of $86,169. The agreement includes a clause providing that the prevailing party in any dispute concerning the agreement would be entitled to recover its costs and attorney fees from the non-prevailing party. The

clause states: "In the event of any dispute between [appellant] and/or [appellant's agent], and [respondent] concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party in any such dispute shall be awarded its attorney's fees and costs." A separate provision states that "[i]n the event that either party incurs legal costs in the enforcement of this agreement . . . , the non-prevailing party in such controversy shall pay the legal costs (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees) of the prevailing party." Respondent sued appellant for breach of contract, money due, and foreclosure of mechanic's lien. The original complaint sought $42,577.95 in damages plus prejudgment interest and attorney fees and costs. Each cause of action was pled in the alternative. In his trial brief, respondent claimed $43,080.52 in total damages, exclusive of interest, consisting of $8,629.26 still owed on the original contract price of $86,169; $32,488.10 for extra work performed pursuant to oral modifications of the original agreement; and $1,963.16 as reimbursement for the cost of equipment rentals. In a supplemental brief, respondent adjusted the amount of his claimed damages to $43,010.48, exclusive of prejudgment interest. Appellant's trial brief claimed that respondent was entitled to no more than $18,039.26 and was not entitled to any prejudgment interest. The court awarded respondent $25,522.38 in damages, consisting of $8,629.26 "under the breach of contract action, $15,000 due for the reasonable value of additional work not covered by the original contract and $1,893.12 due for reimbursement of rental equipment under the common count cause of action[.]" Respondent was awarded $3,831.84 in prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code1 section 3287, subdivision (b). Judgment was entered in favor of appellant on the cause of action for foreclosure of mechanic's lien after a grant of nonsuit. No appeal was filed from the judgment. Each party filed a memorandum of costs and asked the court to be declared the prevailing party. Following a hearing, the court declared respondent the prevailing