Medical Benefits Admin. v. Nivano Physicians CA3

Filed 4/1/22 Medical Benefits Admin. v. Nivano Physicians CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Nevada) ----

MEDICAL BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, INC. et C093214 al., (Super. Ct. No. CU17-082413) Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

NIVANO PHYSICIANS, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Nivano Physicians and plaintiffs Medical Benefits Administration, Inc. (MBA) and Keely L. Smith are before this court a second time. In a previous opinion, we concluded that a software licensing agreement and settlement agreement purporting to enforce that agreement were illegal and unenforceable. (Medical Benefits Administration, Inc. v. Nivano Physicians, Inc. (Dec. 23, 2021, C091841) [nonpub. opn.]

1

(Slip Opn.).)1 In this appeal, defendant Nivano Physicians contends the trial court’s order awarding plaintiffs attorney fees and costs must be vacated. We agree. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS The underlying facts and procedural history of the litigation at issue here was set forth in our prior opinion on this matter. As relevant here, at the close of the evidence at trial, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 for an award of $140,183, and subsequently the jury returned a verdict awarding $250,000 in damages to MBA, and $1 in damages to Smith. (Slip Opn., supra.) On May 1, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees, arguing that both MBA and Smith were prevailing parties for purposes of an attorney fee award and that the proposed fees were reasonable. Defendant’s opposition to the motion argued that plaintiffs’ proposed fees were unnecessary and unreasonable, and Smith was not a prevailing party entitled to an attorney fee award. Following a hearing, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees in full, awarding $365,065. The court concluded MBA and Smith “were and are the prevailing parties in connection with the contract claims at issue” in the case. The court further explained that, even if Smith were not a prevailing party, it “would find that plaintiff MBA and Smith’s ‘various claims were inextricably intertwined, making it impracticable, if not impossible, to separate the multitude of conjoined activities into compensable or noncompensable time units.’ ”