United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES 
D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
April 8, 2019, the Court granted a motion to dismiss filed by
defendant U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master
Protection Trust (“Defendant”) and entered
judgment on April 15, 2019 against plaintiff Daryoush
Javaheri (“Plaintiff”). Defendant now moves for
attorneys' fees in the amount of $13, 846. For the
reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN
PART and DENIES IN PART
Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees
(“Motion”). (Mot., ECF No. 29).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Court has recited the facts of this case extensively in its
Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with
Prejudice (“Order”) and incorporates that
discussion here by reference. (See Order, ECF No.
Plaintiff borrowed $2, 660, 000 secured by a Deed of Trust
against property located at 10809 Wellworth, Los Angeles CA
(the “Property”). (See Def.'s Req.
for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) in Support of Mot. to
Dismiss, ECF No. 11.) After Plaintiff defaulted on the loan,
the Property was sold at public auction on May 31, 2016 with
Defendant becoming the owner, and on June 9, 2016, a
Trustee's Deed Upon Sale was recorded against the
Property evidencing the foreclosure sale. (Id.)
Following a lengthy procedural history and multiple judgments
recounted in this Court's April 8, 2019 Order, Plaintiff
again sued Defendant on June 14, 2018, asserting the
following claims: (1) wrongful foreclosure; (2) to set aside
trustee's sale; (3) to void or cancel trustee's deed
upon sale; (4) to void or cancel assignment of deed of trust;
(5) quiet title; and (6) relief for eviction and related
relief. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1-1.)
April 8, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims
with prejudice based on Defendant's successful invocation
of res judicata. (See Order.) The Court
entered judgment on April 15, 2019, and Defendant timely
filed the Motion on April 22, 2019 seeking attorneys'
fees under the promissory note
(“Note”). (J., ECF No. 28; Mot.) On May 13, 2019,
The Court deemed adjudication of the Motion appropriate
without oral argument and therefore vacated the May 20, 2019
hearing. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff then filed an untimely
opposition (“Opposition”) on May 17, 2019.
(See Opp'n, ECF No. 31.)
Motion for Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to Contract.
California law, a prevailing party is ordinarily not entitled
to attorneys' fees unless the parties have previously
agreed to shift fees or the fees are otherwise provided by
statute.” In re Bennett, 298 F.3d 1059, 1070
(9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). “California Civil
Code § 1717(a) provides for the awarding of
attorney's fees in the case of a contract.”
Orange v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., No. EDCV 12-01683
VAP, 2013 WL 7869377, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2013).
Section 1717(a) states:
In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically
provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are
incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to
one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party
who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract,
whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or
not shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in
addition to other costs.
Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a); see also Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code §§ 1021, 1033.5(a).
seeking recovery of attorneys' fees under Section 1717(a)
must show that: (1) a contract authorizes such fees; (2) the
moving party is the prevailing party; and (3) the fees
incurred are reasonable. Johnston v. Lindauer, No.
2:07-CV-01280, 2010 WL 2850767, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 20,
2010) (citing First Nat. Ins. Co. of Am. v. MBA
Const., No. 02:04-CV-836 GEB-JFM, 2005 WL 3406336, at *2
(E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2005). Moreover, “to recover fees
incurred in connection with litigation of a claim under a fee
shifting contract, a party must show that the claim fell
within the scope of the contract…” Boza v.
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. 12-cv-06993JAKFMOX,
2013 WL 12136517, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2013),
aff'd sub nom. Boza v. U.S. Bank NA (Two Cases),
606 Fed.Appx. 357 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Baldain v. Am.
Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. CIV.S-09-0931LKK/GGH,
2010 WL 2606666, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2010).