Filed 5/26/22 AWCC Acquisition I, LLC v. Alta Oak Realty, LLC CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| AWCC ACQUISITION I, LLC,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
ALTA OAK REALTY, LLC,
Defendant and Respondent.
|
F081858
(Super. Ct. No. BCV-17-101734)
OPINION |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. David R. Lampe, Judge.
McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth and Scott M. Reddie; Kibler Fowler & Cave and Matthew J. Cave for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Alpha Trial Group, Richard K. Welsh and Jeff Zuidema; Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, Catherine E. Bennett and James R. Harvey, for Defendants and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
This is the companion case to AWCC Acquisition I, LLC v. Alta Oak Realty, LLC (May 26, 2022, F080581) [nonpub. opn.]), in which we affirmed the judgment entered in favor of Alta Oak Realty, LLC and Terra-Gen, LLC, and against plaintiff AWCC Acquisition I, LLC (AWCC), following a court trial on AWCC’s breach of contract claims. In a postjudgment proceeding, the trial court found the parties’ contracts supported a fee award to Alta as the prevailing party and awarded Alta $574,519.50 in attorney fees. AWCC appeals from the ruling awarding Alta its attorney fees.
As AWCC concedes, this appeal is purely protective: If AWCC had prevailed in its challenge to the judgment on the merits, it would not want to be burdened with a judgment for the other side’s attorney fees against it. AWCC does not make any arguments concerning the merits of the award.
We express no opinion as to whether a purely protective appeal of this nature is even necessary, i.e., whether an attorney fee order, otherwise unchallenged, might be void if the judgment on which it was based were reversed on appeal. It is enough to say here that the judgment is not being reversed on the merits, so there is no basis to reverse the attorney fee order. We need only add that respondent shall recover its costs in this proceeding as well.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent.
DE SANTOS, J.
WE CONCUR:
POOCHIGIAN, ACTING P. J.
SMITH, J.
