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

835 chars

[17] Morton further asserts that the district court should not
have considered the leases because they were not entered at
the summary judgment stage and proven as damages. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(A) requires that “[a] claim
for attorney’s fees . . . must be made by motion unless the
substantive law requires those fees to be proved at trial as an
element of damages.” The district court correctly found that
California substantive law did not so require, a conclusion
evidenced by California Civil Code § 1717(a) itself, which
provides that “[r]easonable attorney’s fees shall be fixed by
the court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit.” There-
fore, it was not error for the district court to consider as evi-
dence leases entered for the first time on a post-judgment
motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text