{"id":885,"date":"2015-10-27T14:26:34","date_gmt":"2015-10-27T21:26:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fiduciarydutiesblog.com\/?p=885"},"modified":"2015-10-27T14:26:34","modified_gmt":"2015-10-27T21:26:34","slug":"dorsey-v-superior-court-no-attorneys-fees-in-small-claims-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/?p=885","title":{"rendered":"Dorsey v. Superior Court – No Attorneys Fees in Small Claims Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"

As the jurisdiction of small claims court has increased (now up to $10,000), attorneys are called on more frequently to assist on appeal.\u00a0 (Ground rule – attorneys are not permitted to assist at the original trial, only on appeal.)<\/p>\n

In Dorsey v. Superior Court<\/strong> (Oct. 22, 2015) __ Cal.App.4th __, \u201cThe small claims court dispute [ ] arose out of a condominium lease, which contain[ed] a prevailing party attorney fee provision.\u00a0 [The trial court] entered judgment in favor of the tenants [ ] against the landlord [ ] in the principal amount of $1,560.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is where it gets interesting.\u00a0 \u201cAfter judgment, [the tenant] sought $11,497.50 in attorney fees as the prevailing parties under the attorney fee provision in the lease.\u00a0 [The landlord] opposed the motion, asserting Code of Civil Procedure section 116.780(c) trumped the contractual attorney fees provision, limiting any award to $150.\u00a0 The superior court awarded Crosier $10,373.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Fresno<\/a>

Fort Sumter<\/p><\/div>\n

Explained the court, \u201cSmall claims court exists so people with meritorious claims for small amounts may have those claims adjudicated without spending more on attorney fees than the claims are worth.\u201d<\/p>\n

Note<\/strong> \u2013 English law has recognized \u201csmall claims\u201d jurisdiction for at least five centuries.\u00a0 As the court discussed, \u201cThe small claims court system has been refined over hundreds of years with recurring attention from the courts, legal commentators, and the Legislature.\u201d\u00a0 It\u2019s not like California invented small claims court.<\/p>\n

Continued the court, \u201cSection 116.780(c) reflects a legislative determination that a small claims appeal should require no more than minimal attorney time.\u00a0 The small claims appeal procedure was intended to be integral to the legislative scheme for expeditious and cost-effective resolution of small claims.<\/p>\n

\u201cTherefore, as we explain, section 116.780(c) must be construed to override contractual attorney fee provisions and limit the attorney fee award here to $150.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court also discussed the unusual procedure of the case.\u00a0 \u201cThe superior court’s judgment on a small claims appeal is \u2018final and not appealable\u2019 \u2026 However, if law is to be made settling a significant issue of small claims procedure, \u2018the appellate courts must have jurisdiction to entertain petitions for extraordinary review in appropriate circumstances.\u2019\u00a0 Writ relief is appropriate here to review this significant issue in small claims law and to ensure uniform interpretation of the governing statutes.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bottom line<\/strong> \u2013 The court can award attorney\u2019s fees up to $150.00 in small claims court.\u00a0 Dorsey v. Superior Court<\/strong> (Oct. 22, 2015) __ Cal.App.4th __<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As the jurisdiction of small claims court has increased (now up to $10,000), attorneys are called on more frequently to assist on appeal.\u00a0 (Ground rule – attorneys are not permitted to assist at the original trial, only on appeal.) In Dorsey v. Superior Court (Oct. 22, 2015) __ Cal.App.4th __, \u201cThe small claims court dispute […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-case-law","category-developments"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/885"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=885"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/885\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=885"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=885"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}