Rosen v. Century Law Group CA2/4

California Court of Appeal May 16, 2022 No. B309991Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees, holding that the underlying legal malpractice action was not an action "on a contract" under Civil Code section 1717 and that the defendants failed to provide evidence of fees incurred for their cross-complaint.

Issues

Whether a legal malpractice action constitutes an action "on a contract" for purposes of awarding attorneys' fees under Civil Code section 1717.
Whether the defendants were entitled to attorneys' fees for prevailing on their cross-complaint when they failed to provide evidence of time spent on that specific claim.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“CLG failed, however, to provide the trial court with evidence from which it could apportion fees for time spent on prosecuting the cross-complaint.”

Filed 5/16/22 Rosen v. Century Law Group CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

JONATHAN ROSEN, B309991

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC650926) v.

CENTURY LAW GROUP, LLP, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Monica Bachner, Judge. Affirmed. Jonathan Rosen, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent. Century Law Group and Karen A. Larson for Defendants and Appellants.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants and appellants Century Law Group (CLG) and Edward Lear (Lear) (collectively, CLG) appeal from an order denying their motion for attorneys’ fees. CLG contends the trial court erred in denying its motion because: (1) the retainer agreement between CLG and plaintiff and respondent Jonathan Rosen (Rosen) contains a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision; and (2) that CLG was represented by an attorney who was “of counsel” for CLG does not preclude an award of attorneys’ fees under Civil Code section 1717. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In September 2015, Rosen retained CLG to defend him in a legal malpractice lawsuit. The retainer agreement between CLG and Rosen contained an attorneys’ fees clause, which provided: “If any action at law or in equity, in court or in arbitration, is necessary to enforce or interpret the terms of this Retainer Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees (including fees for services rendered by our law firm’s attorneys, waiving any contrary holding in Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274)[1] incurred by our law firm, costs and necessary disbursements, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.” Rosen subsequently sued CLG, alleging causes of action for professional negligence, breach of contract, and breach of

Rosen v. Century Law Group CA2/4

AI Brief

JONATHAN ROSEN, B309991

INTRODUCTION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J.

MANELLA, P.J.

COLLINS, J.

AI Brief