Filed 9/1/26 Business Alliance Ins. Co. v. Celis CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS ALLIANCE INSURANCE D086880
COMPANY,
Cross-complainant and
Appellant,
(San Diego Super. Ct. No.
v. 37-2020-0025139-CU-CD-CTL)
ALEX CELIS et al.,
Cross-defendants and
Respondents.
APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Diego
County, Blaine K. Bowman, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
DorenfeldLaw, David Dorenfeld and Mazyar H. Mazarei for Cross-
complainant and Appellant.
Freeman Mathis & Gary and David G. Molinari for Cross-defendants
and Respondents.
Business Alliance Insurance Company (Business Alliance) appeals
the trial court’s partial denial of its attorney’s fees motion. Business Alliance
argues that the trial court erred when it found a portion of the fees it sought
in its motion were duplicative of fees it had previously sought and been
awarded. We agree that the trial court erred in treating any of the fees
sought as duplicative. Accordingly, we reverse with instructions for the trial
court to redetermine the attorney’s fee award.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2017, Business Alliance issued a contractor’s bond to Axcel
Construction. In conjunction with the bond, Alex Celis, doing business as
Axcel Construction (collectively, Celis), indemnified Business Alliance for
costs incurred, including “attorney’s fees … for which the surety … incur by
reason of such suretyship whether or not the surety shall have paid the same
at the time of the demand.”
A homeowner filed a construction defect case against Celis in July,
2020. Eight months later, Business Alliance filed a cross-complaint for
breach of the indemnification agreement against Celis. In a June 2024 order,
the court found Celis was bound by the indemnification agreement and that
it included an attorney’s fee provision. The court ruled in favor of Business
Alliance for the stipulated amount of $13,555.36, representing attorney’s fees
and expenses incurred through October 4, 2021. In entering judgment in
favor of Business Alliance for that amount nearly two months later, the court
further provided that Business Alliance was “entitled to recover its costs and
attorney’s fees as permitted by the [i]ndemnification [a]greement or as
otherwise provided by law.”
2
In January 2025, Business Alliance filed a postjudgment motion
seeking an additional $17,002.44 in attorney’s fees and costs. In opposition,
Celis argued that Business Alliance was “seeking double recovery of fees”
that were already awarded. The trial court agreed, finding that “a portion
of the fees” sought by Business Alliance were “duplicative” of the fees it
awarded to Business Alliance in its August 2024 judgment. Celis
nevertheless conceded Business Alliance was entitled to $1,350 in attorney’s
fees for the current motion, and the court ultimately “exercise[d] its
discretion in favor of finding of attorneys’ fees of $3,947.95 and costs of
$1,461.69 reasonable.” The court directed the clerk to “interlineate” the
August 2024 judgment to reflect this award.
DISCUSSION
The trial court erred when it found Business Alliance presented
“duplicative” requests for attorney’s fees. The evidence shows that the award
of fees to Business Alliance in the August 2024 judgment was based on work
performed up to and including October 4, 2021. In contrast, the fees
Business Alliance sought in its January 2025 motion were for work
performed after that date.
Specifically, in August 2024, Business Alliance was awarded
$13,555.36 in attorney’s fees and expenses for work performed from January
3, 2020 to October 4, 2021. Below is a screenshot from the “Matter Summary
Report” that served as the basis of the August 2024 award, showing a
$13,555.36 total billable and expense amount from January 3, 2020 to
October 4, 2021:
3
Consistent with this billing record, Business Alliance’s principal attorney
declared that the judgment “covered fees/costs incurred from litigation
inception until plaintiff’s dismissal of [Business Alliance from the underlying
construction defect case] on 10/6/2021.”
In January 2025, Business Alliance filed a motion seeking an
additional award of $17,002.44 in attorney’s fees and costs for work
performed after the time period covered by the initial award—from October
26, 2021 to June 14, 2024. A supporting (but belatedly filed) attorney
declaration specified that because the judgment had already awarded fees
and costs through October 6, 2021, the motion “now would cover fees/costs
incurred to enforce the Indemnity Agreement from that date forward.”
(Italics added.) Below is a screenshot of the caption from the detailed billing
records Business Alliance submitted in support of its January 2025 motion,
showing time entries for work performed from October 26, 2021, to June 14,
2024:
Below is another screenshot from the billing records that Business
Alliance submitted in support of its January 2025 motion, showing the
caption on the detailed expenses spreadsheet for $1,202.85 in filing fees and
service costs from October 26, 2021, to June 14, 2024:
4
Also submitted in support of its January 2025 motion was a billing
statement showing $783.59 in copy and vendor expenses in 2024 and 2025.
Consistent with this evidence, Business Alliance’s principal attorney
declared that the firm incurred $16,304 in attorney’s fees “starting when the
[underlying construction defect] complaint was dismissed as to [Business
Alliance]” in October 2021. According to Business Alliance, these are “fees
incurred post-trial and in connection with the severed cross-complaint
proceedings, which are distinct from the fees previously awarded as
damages” in the August 2024 judgment.
Celis is thus incorrect to argue that Business Alliance “submitted the
same billing invoices from prior counsel that made up the fees incurred that
supported the underlying $13,555.36 award.” Clearly, the billing records the
court relied on for its August 2024 judgment cover different fees, expenses
and a different time period than the billing records Business Alliance
submitted in support of its January 2025 motion. Additionally, it is
inaccurate to say that Business Alliance “participated in no further litigation”
after it was “dismissed from the underlying case” in October 2021. Although
dismissed from the construction defect case, the evidence shows Business
Alliance was actively involved in “post-trial proceedings” and the “severed
cross-complaint proceedings,” including participating in discovery, executing
stipulations , and preparing and filing a motion for summary judgment.
Thus, unlike the trial court, we find no evidence that “a portion of the
fees sought by [Business Alliance] on this motion are duplicative of those
5
awarded to [Business Alliance] in the August 2, 2024, judgment.” As a result,
we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to redetermine
the award. (See Etcheson v. FCA US LLC (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 831, 841
[“[W]hen the record affirmatively shows the trial court’s discretionary
determination of fees pivoted on a factual finding entirely lacking in
evidentiary support, the matter must be reversed with instructions to
redetermine the award”].) We express no opinion on what an appropriate
and reasonable fee award should be for work performed after October 26,
2021.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order granting in part and denying in part Business
Alliance’s motion for attorney’s fees is reversed insofar as the trial court
reduced the award after finding some fees Business Alliance sought were
duplicative of previously awarded fees. The matter is remanded with
instructions for the trial court to redetermine the award consistent with the
principles expressed in this opinion. Appellant is entitled to its costs on
appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
DATO, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.
6
