Lee v. Lie and Reddington

Filed 5/11/06 Lee v. Lie and Reddington CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

Albert Lee brought an action to recover attorney fees against Roland Lie and Michelle Reddington and now appeals a judgment for the defendants and an order denying his motion to tax costs. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND

This protracted dispute over attorney fees arises from the successful defense of an eviction action. The tenant, Michelle Reddington, was a waitress in San Francisco who leased an apartment from a Netherlands Antilles corporation called Primo Segundo, N.V. The landlord filed an eviction action against Reddington alleging that she had failed to pay charges of $12.40 and $590.65 and had breached covenants of her lease by redecorating her apartment. Reddington was initially represented by an attorney, Christina Chen, who withdrew shortly before trial. Reddington prevailed on another attorney, Roland Lie[1] to assist her as she appeared in propria persona. With his help, Reddington secured a dismissal of the eviction action.

Represented now by Lie, Reddington filed a motion for attorney fees under a lease provision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 and Civil Code section 1717. The landlord responded with a lengthy memo in opposition, which presented a series of objections. The first of these objections was that Reddington should be barred on equitable grounds from recovering attorney fees because she had breached an oral settlement agreement negotiated the Friday before the Monday trial date. The memo argued: â€