2
second order held in pertinent part as follows: “While Defendant argues at length that the
multiple attorney’s fees provisions contained in the parties’ written lease are applicable
only in specific circumstances, Plaintiffs are correct in pointing out that these
circumstances cover nearly every situation in which the landlord would be aggrieved.
There is no reciprocal remedy for any situation in which the tenant is the injured party.
[¶] The Court notes that Paragraph 30 of the lease, which contains an attorney’s fee
provision, contains this language: ‘Resident(s) shall further indemnify, defend and hold
harmless Management from and against all claims arising from any breach of default in
the performance of any obligation on Resident(s) part to be performed under the terms of
the Rental Agreement.’ Such a one-sided attorney’s fee provision is in violation of Civil
Code § 1717(a). Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 285.”
The case proceeded to jury trial, with the Honorable Joseph Bergeron presiding.
Trial began on March 25, 2014, with testimony taken over eight days. On April 4, the
jury returned a verdict for the Hjelms on all counts, awarding economic damage to the
Hjelms in the amount of $11,652; non-economic damage to Christine Hjelm of $35,000;
and non-economic damage to Justin Hjelm of $25,000. Prometheus did not ask for any
clarification of the damages.
Judge Bergeron entered judgment on April 11, and the Hjelms gave notice of entry
on April 14.
On April 25, Prometheus filed a notice of intention to move for new trial. Judge
Bergeron denied it by order of June 12.
Meanwhile, on April 14, the Hjelms filed a motion for attorney fees. The original
moving papers totaled some 76 pages, including a lengthy declaration and a supplemental
declaration from the Hjelms’s attorney supporting the amount sought. Prometheus filed
lengthy opposition, and the Hjelms a reply. The motion came on for hearing on June 12,
following which Judge Bergeron permitted Prometheus to file a supplemental brief
concerning a new case it had cited at the hearing, addressing an issue of apportionment, a
brief that was filed.