Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Los Angeles Partner Christopter Wagner successfully defended against an appeal challenging an attorney’s fee award to a GRSM client, a major appliance and electronics company.
Los Angeles Partners Calvin Davis and Crystal Yu handled the underlying matter in which a vendor for GRSM’s client sued in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming breach of contract. The firm successfully argued that the matter could not be heard in Los Angeles because a venue-selection clause required it to be heard in Alabama. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a contrary “shrink wrap” venue clause controlled. The Superior Court dismissed the action, and GRSM also obtained an attorney’s fees award based on the language in the applicable contract.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the firm’s client was not entitled to attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 as it was not the prevailing party on the entire contract, as the dismissal was limited to the venue issue. However, Wagner argued that 1717 was not the exclusive ground upon which an attorney’s fee award in California can be based, and that the award was based on Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021, 1032, and 1033.5. Here, the contract permitted attorney’s fees for the prevailing party “in any dispute or proceeding” arising under the contract.
After oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued a decision unanimously affirming the attorney’s fees award. The opinion provides useful guidance for navigating an often contentious and confusing area of California law.