Barajas v.
Filed 9/16/10 Barajas v. Brandon CA2/7
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
SEVEN
JORGE BARAJAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and
Respondents,
v.
JOHN S. BRANDON,
Defendant, Cross-complainant and
Appellant.
B217069
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BC380323)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County. Malcolm H.
Mackey, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Harold E. Hamersmith and Robert T. Sturgeon for
Defendant, Cross-complainant, and Appellant.
Ralph
W. Boshes for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants, and Respondents.
____________________
INTRODUCTION
The action in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court had its inception in a construction contract pertaining
to the remodeling of a residence. The
residence was owned by John S. Brandon and his wife Diane A. Golden in the form
of the Brandon-Golden Trust.[1] Jorge Barajas, doing business as Serrano
Construction,[2] was engaged to do the construction work. Eventually, the construction company sued for
work not paid for by the owners. The
owners cross complained for uncompleted and defective work. The results of a bench trial ended in a
judgment on the contractor's complaint in the amount of $45,702 and on the
cross complaint of owners for $260,543 for costs to correct and complete the
contract work for a net recovery to owners in the amount of $214,832. Owners moved post judgment for attorneys fees
as the prevailing parties pursuant to statutory authority contained in Civil
Code section 3260,[3] which the trial court found inapplicable and
denied owners' motion for attorneys fees.
This appeal followed as an appealable order under section 904.1,
subdivision (a)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1986) 181
Cal.App.3d 213, 223 in which owners contend they are entitled to attorneys fees
in the amount of $208,865.90.
AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS[4]
The home improvement contract.
Owners had title to a home
located at 17835 Castellammare Drive
in Pacific Palisades, California which they desired to improve. On or about September 25, 2006, owners signed a contract with
contractor to make the improvements to the residence. The contract was extensive, but purportedly a
standard printed â€
| Description | The action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court had its inception in a construction contract pertaining to the remodeling of a residence. The residence was owned by John S. Brandon and his wife Diane A. Golden in the form of the Brandon-Golden Trust.[1] Jorge Barajas, doing business as Serrano Construction,[2] was engaged to do the construction work. Eventually, the construction company sued for work not paid for by the owners. The owners cross complained for uncompleted and defective work. The results of a bench trial ended in a judgment on the contractor's complaint in the amount of $45,702 and on the cross complaint of owners for $260,543 for costs to correct and complete the contract work for a net recovery to owners in the amount of $214,832. Owners moved post judgment for attorneys fees as the prevailing parties pursuant to statutory authority contained in Civil Code section 3260,[3] which the trial court found inapplicable and denied owners' motion for attorneys fees. This appeal followed as an appealable order under section 904.1, subdivision (a)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 213, 223 in which owners contend they are entitled to attorneys fees in the amount of $208,865.90. |
| Rating |
