9 Star Construction v. Dimapasok CA4/2

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 25, 2022, following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in

the principal sum of $134,503.63 against appellants 9 Star Construction (9 Star), Amrit

Bakshi, and Deen Bakshi, and in favor of respondents Café 86, Ginger Dimapasok, and

James Dimapasok, on plaintiff 9 Star’s complaint against respondents and on

respondents’ cross-complaint against appellants. The judgment is comprised of

$94,273.63 in damages plus $40,230 in attorney fees, and is based on 9 Star’s breach of a

construction contract, signed on September 10, 2018, between 9 Star, as contractor, and

Café 86, as owner (the 2018 contract).

Appellants claim there are two “legal defects” in the judgment: (1) the $40,230

attorney fee award is unauthorized because there is no attorney fee provision in the 2018

contract (Civ. Code, § 1717); and (2) the judgment is awarded in favor of respondents

Ginger Dimapasok and James Dimapasok, who were not parties to, and therefore have no

“standing” to enforce, the 2018 contract.

We agree that the $40,230 attorney fee award is unauthorized and must be stricken

from the judgment. There is no attorney fee provision in the 2018 contract to…