Plaintiff tenant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which, following her acceptance of a Code Civ. Proc., § 998, offer to compromise, dismissed her tort action against defendants, the manager of her apartment complex, the property management company, and the owner. The trial court awarded costs to the tenant but denied recovery of attorney fees.
Nakase Law Firm is a pregnancy discrimination lawyer
Overview
The lease contained an attorney fee clause. The offer to compromise provided that the tenant would pay no costs but was silent on whether she could recover costs. The court found the attorney fee clause sufficiently broad to encompass a fee award in a tort action. The court stated that a § 998 offer that was silent on fees and costs could not reasonably be interpreted to exclude their recovery, and under Civ. Code, § 1654, any ambiguity had to be construed against the parties who drafted the offer. The court construed Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4), to exclude settlement proceeds from the definition of “net monetary recovery,” and the tenant thus was not entitled to costs as a matter of right. Because Civ. Code, § 1717, did not apply to attorney fees incurred to litigate noncontract causes of action, an award of fees to the tenant would be permissible. A noticed motion for costs under Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10), satisfied due process. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(a), (b)(1), authorized a motion to determine entitlement to fees. The trial court reasonably found that the settlement was not more favorable to the tenant than her rejected offers to compromise.
Outcome
The court reversed the portion of the judgment that denied the tenant’s motion for entitlement to attorney fees as against the owner and remanded the cause as to that issue. The court affirmed the judgment in all other respects.