Keegan and Coppin Co. v. Magee
Filed 6/1/06 Keegan and Coppin Co. v. Magee CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| KEEGAN AND COPPIN COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KENNETH MAGEE et al., Defendant and Appellant. | A109365 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV 233169) |
Defendant and appellant Kenneth Magee (Magee) appeals a post-judgment order awarding plaintiff Keegan and Coppin Company, Inc. (Keegan & Coppin) attorney fees as the prevailing party in its action for breach of a real estate listing agreement.
Magee's only ground for the appeal is that the underlying judgment was erroneously granted, and therefore, the fee award was necessarily erroneous as well.
In Magee's related appeal we have determined that Keegan & Coppin was entitled to judgment. (See Appeal No. A108653.) Consequently, there is no basis for Magee's premise of error.
The order awarding attorney fees is affirmed.
_________________________
Jones, P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
Simons, J.
_________________________
Gemello, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Apartment Manager Attorneys.
