Business Alliance Ins. Co. v. Celis CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a postjudgment order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County
- Trial judge
- Blaine K. Bowman
- Outcome
- reversed — Reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William S. Dato (author), O'Rourke, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court partially denied Business Alliance's postjudgment motion for attorney's fees, finding that a portion of the requested fees were duplicative of a prior award. The Court of Appeal reversed, determining that the trial court's finding of duplicative fees was entirely lacking in evidentiary support because the billing records covered distinct time periods.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Partial denial of postjudgment motion for attorney's fees based on a finding that requested fees were duplicative of a prior award.“The trial court erred when it found Business Alliance presented “duplicative” requests for attorney’s fees.” | abuse of discretion | error (fact finding unsupported) | agree with court The appellate court found that the trial court's discretionary determination pivoted on a factual finding (duplicative fees) that was entirely lacking in evidentiary support, as the billing records clearly showed distinct time periods for the two fee requests. |
Authorities
- relied: Etcheson v. FCA US LLC (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 831 — When the record affirmatively shows the trial court’s discretionary determination of fees pivoted on a factual finding entirely lacking in evidentiary support, the matter must be reversed with instructions to redetermine the award.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the standard of review for attorney's fee awards and identifies a clear factual error in the trial court's determination. The court relies on specific billing records and declarations to demonstrate that the fees sought in the second motion covered a different time period than the first award, thereby refuting the trial court's finding of duplicative fees.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court partially denied Business Alliance's postjudgment motion for $17,002.44 in attorney's fees and costs, finding a portion duplicative of the $13,555.36 fee award in the August 2024 judgment and awarding only $3,947.95 in fees and $1,461.69 in costs. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the record showed the two fee requests covered different time periods and work, so the duplication finding lacked evidentiary support, and remanded for the trial court to redetermine the award.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding that a portion of the attorney's fees sought in the January 2025 postjudgment motion were duplicative of fees already awarded in the August 2024 judgment, and corresponding reduction of the fee award“Clearly, the billing records the court relied on for its August 2024 judgment cover different fees, expenses and a different time period than the billing records Business Alliance submitted in support of its January 2025 motion.” | abuse of discretion | error (fact finding unsupported) | agree with court The opinion describes the prior award as covering work from January 3, 2020 to October 4, 2021, and the new motion as covering work from October 26, 2021 to June 14, 2024, supported by billing records and attorney declarations. Celis's claims that the same invoices were resubmitted and that no further litigation occurred are refuted by the record described (discovery, stipulations, summary judgment motion). Under Etcheson, a discretionary fee determination resting on a factual finding without evidentiary support must be reversed. The court appropriately declined to fix the amount and remanded for redetermination, leaving reasonableness to the trial court. The reasoning follows from the record as quoted. |
Authorities
- relied: Etcheson v. FCA US LLC (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 831 — When the record affirmatively shows the trial court's discretionary fee determination pivoted on a factual finding entirely lacking in evidentiary support, the matter must be reversed with instructions to redetermine the award.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court compared the billing records and declarations supporting each fee request, showed they covered distinct time periods and work, and applied the correct rule that a discretionary fee ruling resting on an unsupported factual finding must be reversed for redetermination. It did not expressly state the standard of review or address whether the trial court's reduction might independently rest on reasonableness grounds, though it preserved that question by expressing no opinion on the appropriate amount on remand.
Opinion
Filed 9/1/26 Business Alliance Ins. Co. v. Celis CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS ALLIANCE INSURANCE D086880 COMPANY,
Cross-complainant and Appellant, (San Diego Super. Ct. No. v. 37-2020-0025139-CU-CD-CTL)
ALEX CELIS et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Blaine K. Bowman, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. DorenfeldLaw, David Dorenfeld and Mazyar H. Mazarei for Cross- complainant and Appellant. Freeman Mathis & Gary and David G. Molinari for Cross-defendants and Respondents. Business Alliance Insurance Company (Business Alliance) appeals the trial court’s partial denial of its attorney’s fees motion. Business Alliance argues that the trial court erred when it found a portion of the fees it sought in its motion were duplicative of fees it had previously sought and been awarded. We agree that the trial court erred in treating any of the fees sought as duplicative. Accordingly, we reverse with instructions for the trial court to redetermine the attorney’s fee award.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2017, Business Alliance issued a contractor’s bond to Axcel Construction. In conjunction with the bond, Alex Celis, doing business as Axcel Construction (collectively, Celis), indemnified Business Alliance for costs incurred, including “attorney’s fees … for which the surety … incur by reason of such suretyship whether or not the surety shall have paid the same at the time of the demand.” A homeowner filed a construction defect case against Celis in July, 2020. Eight months later, Business Alliance filed a cross-complaint for breach of the indemnification agreement against Celis. In a June 2024 order, the court found Celis was bound by the indemnification agreement and that it included an attorney’s fee provision. The court ruled in favor of Business Alliance for the stipulated amount of $13,555.36, representing attorney’s fees and expenses incurred through October 4, 2021. In entering judgment in favor of Business Alliance for that amount nearly two months later, the court further provided that Business Alliance was “entitled to recover its costs and attorney’s fees as permitted by the [i]ndemnification [a]greement or as otherwise provided by law.”
2 In January 2025, Business Alliance filed a postjudgment motion seeking an additional $17,002.44 in attorney’s fees and costs. In opposition, Celis argued that Business Alliance was “seeking double recovery of fees” that were already awarded. The trial court agreed, finding that “a portion of the fees” sought by Business Alliance were “duplicative” of the fees it awarded to Business Alliance in its August 2024 judgment. Celis nevertheless conceded Business Alliance was entitled to $1,350 in attorney’s fees for the current motion, and the court ultimately “exercise[d] its discretion in favor of finding of attorneys’ fees of $3,947.95 and costs of $1,461.69 reasonable.” The court directed the clerk to “interlineate” the August 2024 judgment to reflect this award.
DISCUSSION
The trial court erred when it found Business Alliance presented “duplicative” requests for attorney’s fees. The evidence shows that the award of fees to Business Alliance in the August 2024 judgment was based on work performed up to and including October 4, 2021. In contrast, the fees Business Alliance sought in its January 2025 motion were for work performed after that date. Specifically, in August 2024, Business Alliance was awarded $13,555.36 in attorney’s fees and expenses for work performed from January 3, 2020 to October 4, 2021. Below is a screenshot from the “Matter Summary Report” that served as the basis of the August 2024 award, showing a $13,555.36 total billable and expense amount from January 3, 2020 to October 4, 2021:
3 Consistent with this billing record, Business Alliance’s principal attorney declared that the judgment “covered fees/costs incurred from litigation inception until plaintiff’s dismissal of [Business Alliance from the underlying construction defect case] on 10/6/2021.” In January 2025, Business Alliance filed a motion seeking an additional award of $17,002.44 in attorney’s fees and costs for work performed after the time period covered by the initial award—from October 26, 2021 to June 14, 2024. A supporting (but belatedly filed) attorney declaration specified that because the judgment had already awarded fees and costs through October 6, 2021, the motion “now would cover fees/costs incurred to enforce the Indemnity Agreement from that date forward.” (Italics added.) Below is a screenshot of the caption from the detailed billing records Business Alliance submitted in support of its January 2025 motion, showing time entries for work performed from October 26, 2021, to June 14, 2024:
Below is another screenshot from the billing records that Business Alliance submitted in support of its January 2025 motion, showing the caption on the detailed expenses spreadsheet for $1,202.85 in filing fees and service costs from October 26, 2021, to June 14, 2024: 4 Also submitted in support of its January 2025 motion was a billing statement showing $783.59 in copy and vendor expenses in 2024 and 2025. Consistent with this evidence, Business Alliance’s principal attorney declared that the firm incurred $16,304 in attorney’s fees “starting when the [underlying construction defect] complaint was dismissed as to [Business Alliance]” in October 2021. According to Business Alliance, these are “fees incurred post-trial and in connection with the severed cross-complaint proceedings, which are distinct from the fees previously awarded as damages” in the August 2024 judgment. Celis is thus incorrect to argue that Business Alliance “submitted the same billing invoices from prior counsel that made up the fees incurred that supported the underlying $13,555.36 award.” Clearly, the billing records the court relied on for its August 2024 judgment cover different fees, expenses and a different time period than the billing records Business Alliance submitted in support of its January 2025 motion. Additionally, it is inaccurate to say that Business Alliance “participated in no further litigation” after it was “dismissed from the underlying case” in October 2021. Although dismissed from the construction defect case, the evidence shows Business Alliance was actively involved in “post-trial proceedings” and the “severed cross-complaint proceedings,” including participating in discovery, executing stipulations , and preparing and filing a motion for summary judgment. Thus, unlike the trial court, we find no evidence that “a portion of the fees sought by [Business Alliance] on this motion are duplicative of those 5 awarded to [Business Alliance] in the August 2, 2024, judgment.” As a result, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to redetermine the award. (See Etcheson v. FCA US LLC (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 831, 841 [“[W]hen the record affirmatively shows the trial court’s discretionary determination of fees pivoted on a factual finding entirely lacking in evidentiary support, the matter must be reversed with instructions to redetermine the award”].) We express no opinion on what an appropriate and reasonable fee award should be for work performed after October 26, 2021.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order granting in part and denying in part Business Alliance’s motion for attorney’s fees is reversed insofar as the trial court reduced the award after finding some fees Business Alliance sought were duplicative of previously awarded fees. The matter is remanded with instructions for the trial court to redetermine the award consistent with the principles expressed in this opinion. Appellant is entitled to its costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
DATO, J. WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.