Asphalt Professionals v. Emaron Homes CA2/6

Filed 1/20/16 Asphalt Professionals v. Emaron Homes CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ASPHALT PROFESSIONALS, INC., 2d Civil No. B261674 (Super. Ct. No. SC044181) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v.

EMARON HOMES, LLC et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Asphalt Professionals Inc. (API) appeals an order awarding costs and a total of $390,000 attorney fees to defendants Emaron Homes, LLC (Emaron); Fairland Construction, Inc. (Fairland); and Real Estate Spectrum, Inc. (RES). We conclude, among other things, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the attorney fee award. We affirm. FACTS API filed actions against T.O. IX, LLC, Emaron, Fairland, RES and other defendants. API alleged causes of action for breach of a construction contract, quantum meruit and fraud involving services it provided on a T.O. IX housing development project. API alleged Emaron, Fairland and RES were alter egos of T.O. IX and other defendants. The construction contract contained an attorney fee provision. The trial court bifurcated the case into three phases. Phase one involved the breach of contract and quantum meruit causes of action.

In 2010, API prevailed against T.O. IX on phase one. In 2011, the trial court found Emaron, Fairland and RES were not alter egos. In 2013, Emaron, Fairland and RES filed a motion for attorney fees. The trial court denied the motion, ruling it was untimely. They appealed. In 2014, we reversed and ruled the attorney fee motion was timely. These three prevailing defendants filed a motion for costs and attorney fees. In the motion lead counsel Leonard Tavera said that because this litigation was "complex," he had to secure help from additional counsel. Counsel defended "sixteen defendants" in this case. Some of the defendants he represented did not prevail. In seeking fees for Emaron, Fairland and RES, the "fees were apportioned to [these] prevailing defendants based on when they were first named in one of the five complaints in the instant action." Tavera said for the time the attorneys spent jointly representing all 16 defendants, he reduced the attorney fee request for Emaron, Fairland and RES to only a tiny fraction of the total defense costs--"1/16th each." Emaron, Fairland and RES sought a total attorney fee award of $613,767.43. API filed an opposition and objections. The trial court awarded attorney fees in the amount of $390,000. It rejected API's claim that fees were not proper because "these moving defendants are alter egos" of other defendants. It accepted "the authenticity of the billing sheets submitted by [the] moving defendants." DISCUSSION The Attorney Fee Award The three defendants prevailed on the alter ego issue and were entitled to attorney fees based on the attorney fee provision of the contract. (Pueblo Radiology Medical Group, Inc. v. Gerlach (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 826, 829; see also Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 877.) Attorney fees for a successful party "include compensation for all hours reasonably spent, including those necessary to establish and defend [an attorney] fee claim." (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 639.)