Reasonableness Of Award Did Not Need To Be Addressed, Because Entitlement, Which Parties Agreed To, Was The Real Issue.
Once a case is settled, some issues need not be litigated, even though the parties may want to do so. Such was the case in Medina v. South Coast Car Company, Inc., D069820 (4/1 9/19/17) (Benke, Nares, Aaron) (unpublished).
Medina sued South Coast Car Company, Inc. (SCCC) and Veros Credit, LLC (Veros) in connection with the sale to him of an Audi. The seller, SCCC, assigned the retail installment sales contract to Veros. As part of a settlement, defendants agreed they would not dispute the basis for fee entitlement, that Medina would be deemed the prevailing party, and that the defendants could dispute the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest claimed to have been incurred by Medina.
On appeal, SCCC argued that Medina was not entitled to attorney's fees, and Veros was not liable to pay any fees and costs, "as it was merely the 'holder' of the RISC . . . "
"Because defendants' myriad challenges on appeal to the award of attorney fees, costs and prejudgment interest are limited to the issue of entitlement, as opposed to their amount, explained Justice Benke, "we have no reason to review the reasonableness of such an award."
COMMENT: It is not unusual for a settlement agreement to resolve all issues, reserving the determination of fees to the Court. However, if fee entitlement and reasonableness of the fees are both contested, then the settlement agreement must be drafted with care, so as to reserve the genuinely contested issues to the Court, instead of stipulating away a genuinely contested issue. An additional consideration is that reserving the issue of fee entitlement for the court to decide could make it more difficult to settle the case.
Comments