Pham v. Apex Escrow
Filed 3/15/06 Pham v. Apex Escrow CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| MICHELLE PHAM, Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. APEX ESCROW, INC., Cross-defendant and Respondent. | G035507 (Super. Ct. No. 03CC10435) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila B. Fell, Judge. Reversed.
Jeffrey S. Benice and Glenn Horan for Cross-complainant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Liem H. Do & Associates and Derrick H. Nguyen for Cross-defendant and Respondent.
* * *
Michelle Pham appeals the $5,000 attorney fee award the trial court entered after sustaining, without leave to amend, Apex Escrow, Inc.'s (Apex) demurrer to her third amended cross-complaint for breach of escrow instructions, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, promissory fraud, and negligence. We upheld the demurrer in our recent opinion in Pham v. Apex Escrow, Inc. (Oct. 12, 2005, G034578) [nonpub. opn.] (Pham I). As the prevailing party, Apex sought attorney fees as costs (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, 1033.5) pursuant to an escrow agreement it contends provided for an award of such fees. (See Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a) [validating -- and rendering mutual -- contract clauses â€
