Sadr v. Sabet CA4/3

Filed 4/5/16 Sadr v. Sabet CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SAEED SADR et al.,

Cross-complainants, Cross-defendants G050493 and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00615688) v. OPINION AZITA SABET,

Cross-complainant, Cross-defendant, and Respondent.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert D. Monarch, Retired Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Reversed and remanded. Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer and Mark B. Plummer for Cross- complainants, Cross-defendants and Appellants. Pivo, Halbreich, Martin & Wilson, Scott A. Martin and Peter A. Martin for Cross-complainant, Cross-defendant and Respondent. * * *

Cross-complainants, cross-defendants, and appellants Saeed Sadr and Zohreh Jadali appeal from a postjudgment order denying their post-trial motion for attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 (section 1717). They contend the court erred when it found they were not entitled to fees even though they prevailed on the contract causes of action. Cross-complainant, cross-defendant, and respondent Azita Sabet argues the court correctly denied an award of attorney fees when it found neither side had prevailed in an action where there were both contract and noncontract claims. We conclude that in making its determination, the court should have confined its analysis to the breach of contract causes of action on which Jadali and Sadr were the prevailing parties. Its failure to do so was error. Thus we reverse and remand for the court to determine the amount of attorney fees to be awarded to Jadali and Sadr. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Sabet, an attorney, represented Jadali and Sadr in various matters. There was a retainer agreement for each matter which stated: “The prevailing party in any action to enforce any provision of the agreement will be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in that action or proceeding.” One matter was an action filed by Jadali against Roya Nematollahi and Roya Nematollahi, D.D.S, Inc. (collectively Nematollahi). After the case was settled, Nematollahi was given conflicting instructions from Sabet on the one hand and Jadali on the other as to whom settlement checks should be sent, and Nematollahi filed an interpleader action against both of them. Sabet cross-complained against Jadali and Sadr for breach of contract, fraud, and on common counts to recover fees and costs they allegedly owed her on various matters. As to the breach of contract causes of action, four were against Jadali and one against Sadr. She brought fraud causes of action against Jadali only, separate unjust enrichment claims against Jadali and Sadr, and a quantum meruit and “common counts” causes of action against both.