Peter Kleidman v. RFF Family Partnership, LP

Petitioner Kleidman requests that this petition be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 US 89, 94 (2007). Kleidman sued respondent RFF Family Part­ nership, LP (“RFF”) in connection with a contract. The purported contract had a supposed clause, which provided that the prevailing party could re­ cover its attorney’s fees from the losing party (hereinafter, “Attorney’s Fees Clause”). The court found that RFF prevailed. RFF then made a motion for $40,072.50 in attorney’s fees, based on the Attorney’s Fees Clause. Kleidman opposed RFF’s motion and refused to pay any mon­ ey at all. As RFF claimed $40,072.50 in contractuallyowed attorney’s fees, and as Kleidman refused to pay, one sees that from RFF’s perspective, Kleid­ i man breached the contract and RFF suffered $40,072.50 in damages. I However, under California law, a prevailing party’s contractually-owed attorney’s fees are deemed costs, and the matter is summarily adjudi­ cated as a claim for costs. Thus RFF’s motion was adjudicated summarily as a claim for costs. On the other hand, California law generally provides that claims for money owed on a contract are adjudi­ cated plenarily as claims for damages.