Page 1
Couple Who Sued for $5,000 Security Deposit in Superior Court Properly Denied Fees—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Two of the First District Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed an order denying attorney fees to a couple who were the prevailing parties in an action against their former landlords for a return of their $5,000 security deposit but who, rather than suing in Small Claims Court, brought suit in the Superior Court seeking more than $1.2 million in punitive damages and claiming entitlement to $312,229.13 in attorney’s fees and costs.
Acting Presiding Justice James Richman authored the unpublished opinion, filed Thursday, upholding a decision by Alameda Superior Court Judge Paul Herbert/
The judge did grant the former tenants, Adam and Kathryn Amorastreya, $10,762.50 in attorney fees in connection with successfully defending against a cross-complaint brought by landlords Luis Torres and Carina Campo.
Civil Code §1950.5 provides that a security deposit must be returned, absent the cost of repairs to the premises, which must be itemized. Herbert held, after a trial, that $3,801 was wrongfully withheld and that the plaintiffs suffered other damages.
Judge’s Explanation
In explaining why they would be awarded no attorney fees in their action against Torres and Campo—despite a provision in the lease calling for such an award to the prevailing parties—Herbert said:
“[P]laintiffs are not entitled to seek recovery of their attorney fees incurred in pursuing their affirmative claims for conversion and for the wrongful retention of their security deposit under Civil Code section 1950.5. Indeed, in section 1950.5, et seq., our legislature carefully crafted a comprehensive statutory remedy for the wrongful retention of any rental security deposit, with clear legal standards that shift the burden of proof to landlords to justify retention of any portion of a security deposit, thereby enabling tenants to effectively seek redress in small claims court, without the need to hire and pay counsel on their behalf.”
The judge went on to say:
“Here, Plaintiffs seek to recover $312,229.13 in attorney’s fees and costs incurred for this case, which shocks the conscience of this Court for an action that could have, and should have, more appropriately been initiated in small claims court.”
He told the plaintiffs’ attorney, Stephen Kent Rose:
“[F]rankly, the case was probably over lawyered.”
Appeals Court Opinion
Richman wrote:
“Not only are Judge Herbert’s observations fully supported, his decision reflects our Supreme Court’s observation that any decision to award attorney fees involves equitable considerations.”
He remarked:
“That the case was ‘overlawyered’ is supported by the fact that plaintiffs’ recovery was de minimis. As revealed by plaintiffs’ complaint and their closing argument, plaintiffs sought over $1,300,000 in damages. This included their claimed compensatory damages, the $5,000 security deposit ‘trebled,’ the time allegedly spent by plaintiffs’ in seeking return of the security deposit, and damages for their claimed emotional distress, all in addition to the punitive damages prayed for in the complaint. They recovered less than $30,000, $16,468 to Adam and $13,218 to Kathryn, barely over two percent of their claim.”
The case is Amorastreya v. Torres, A162595.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company