Scenic Enterprise v. SFI McCabe CA4/3

Filed 11/30/23 Scenic Enterprise v. SFI McCabe 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SCENIC ENTERPRISE, LLC et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G062253

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2020-01163838)

SFI MCCABE, LLC et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenn R. Salter, Judge. Affirmed. Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, Jane G. Kearl and Colin C. Holley for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Fingal, Fahrney & Clark and Christopher R. Clark for Defendants and Respondents.

MLink Enterprise, LLC, Scenic Enterprise, LLC, and McCabe Group, LLC (collectively, Buyers) sued SFI McCabe, LLC, and others (collectively, SFI), in connection with a commercial real estate transaction. The trial court ultimately entered judgment for SFI. In a separate decision filed contemporaneously with this opinion, we affirmed the judgment. (Scenic Enterprise, LLC v. SFI McCabe, LLC (Nov. 30, 2023, G061884) [nonpub. opn.].) Following the judgment, the trial court awarded SFI about $370,000 in attorney fees based on the parties’ contract. It also awarded about $27,000 in expert witness fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 for fees incurred after Buyers 1 failed to accept a compromise offer under that provision. Buyers challenge the amount of attorney fees awarded, claiming the court was bound to reduce the requested amount due to SFI’s inadequate billing records. They also challenge the award of expert witness fees, claiming SFI had not shown the requested fees were reasonable and necessary for purposes of section 998. Seeing no abuse of the court’s discretion, we affirm. FACTS I. The Parties’ Transaction and Buyers’ Action In October 2019, SFI and MLink signed a contract for SFI to sell MLink commercial property. The contract provided that if a dispute arose about its terms, the prevailing party would be entitled to attorney fees. MLink later assigned its rights under the contract to McCabe Group and Scenic, and the latter two companies completed the transaction. A dispute arose between the parties, and Buyers filed a lawsuit against SFI, asserting claims for, inter alia, fraudulent concealment, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Before the case went to trial, SFI served on Buyers a statutory offer to compromise under section 998, offering them about $100,000