Case Number: EC056980    Hearing Date: November 07, 2014    Dept: A

Rano Construction v Coobtee

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR

Calendar: 4
Case No: EC056980
Date: 11/7/14

MP: Defendants/Cross-Complainants, Nabeel Coobtee and Mona Coobtee
RP: Cross-Defendant, Rano Construction, Inc. (NO OPPOSITION)

RELIEF REQUESTED:
1. Order awarding attorney’s fees of $24,596.65
2. Order correcting clerical error in case number of judgment.

DISCUSSION:
This case arises from claims by the Plaintiff, Rano Construction, Inc., that the Defendants, Nabeel Coobtee and Mona Coobtee, breached a construction agreement by failing to pay the Plaintiff for construction work. The Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint against the Plaintiff and the subcontractors to claim that the work was not done properly.
The Court held a default prove up hearing on June 30, 2014 on the Cross-Complaint and entered a judgment of $203,886.90 in favor of the Cross-Complainants and against the Cross-Defendant.

This hearing concerns the motion of the Cross-Complainants, Nabeel Coobtee and Mona Coobtee, for an award of attorney’s fees and to correct a clerical error in the judgment.

1. Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Civil Code section 1717 states that a party may recover attorney’s fees when the party prevails in an action based on a contract that provides for the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees. California courts construe the term “on a contract” in section 1717 liberally. Turner v. Schultz (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 974, 979. The phrase “action on a contract” includes not only a traditional action for damages for breach of a contract containing an attorney fees clause, but also any other action that “involves” a contract under which one of the parties would be entitled to recover attorney fees if it prevails in the action. Eden Township Healthcare Dist. v. Eden Medical Center (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 418, 426-427. In determining whether an action is ‘on the contract’ under section 1717, the proper focus is not on the nature of the remedy, but on the basis of the cause of action. Id.
The Cross-Complainants brought a claim that arose from a construction contract with the Cross-Defendant. A copy of the contract is attached as exhibit 1 to the moving papers. Under section 11, the prevailing party in litigation arising from the contact would be entitled to attorney’s fees. Since the Cross-Complainants prevailed on their claim arising from this contract, they are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.
The Cross-Complainants’ attorney, Tab Artis, provides facts to demonstrate that Tab Artis bills $250 per hour and that billing records for the legal services provided in this case are attached as exhibit 2. The amount sought of $24,596.65 is a reasonable amount to bill in this claim based on a breach of the construction contract.

Therefore, the Court will grant the Cross-Complainants’ motion and award the requested amount of attorney’s fees.

2. Motion to Correct Clerical Error
The Cross-Complainants request that the Court correct a clerical error in the judgment regarding the case number. The Court has authority under CCP section 473, on motion of a party or on its own motion, to correct clerical errors in a judgment. McLellan v. McLellan (1972) 23 Cal. App. 3d 343, 358. This is a clerical error because is concerns the form of the judgment and not the merits of any claim.

Therefore, the Court will grant the Cross-Complainants’ motion and correct the judgment to indicate that the case number is EC056980.

RULING:
1. GRANT motion for attorney’s fees and award attorney’s fees to the Cross-Complainants in the sum of $24,596.65.
2. GRANT motion to correct judgment to reflect that the case number is EC056980.