Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)

Citation: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Parent Document: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2009-10-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3065171/barrientos-v-1801-1825-morton-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,602 chars

[15] Morton further argues that the district court erred in
awarding fees to all Tenants because there were two different
fee provisions in the leases, and certain Tenants failed to pro-
vide copies of their leases. The district court correctly found
that “[t]he 17 leases offered into evidence by Plaintiffs are
sufficient to establish entitlement to fees for all Plaintiffs.”10
The merits issues concerning all Tenants were “so factually
interrelated that it would have been impossible to separate the
activities into compensable and noncompensable time units.”
Cruz v. Ayromloo, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725, 730 (Ct. App. 2007)
(alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Considering
that there is no meaningful difference between the relevant
portions of the two fee provisions on record, and the lack of
  10
     Fifteen Tenants submitted leases providing that “[i]f any legal action
or proceeding be brought by either party to enforce any part of this Agree-
ment, the prevailing party shall recover . . . reasonable attorney fees and
costs.” Two Tenants submitted leases providing that “[i]f any legal action
or proceeding be brought by either party to enforce any part of this Agree-
ment, the prevailing party shall recover . . . reasonable costs, including
attorney’s fees.” Five Tenants did not submit their leases because they no
longer have copies of them, and Morton refused to provide the originals.
14454        BARRIENTOS v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC
evidence that the five leases not in evidence contained materi-
ally different fee provisions, we affirm the district court’s
conclusion.

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text