Pierry, Inc. v. Thirty-One Gifts, LLC
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:17-cv-03074
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Pierry v. Thirty-One Gifts, Judge Beeler denied both parties’ motions for prevailing-party fees and costs because neither achieved greater contractual relief.
Pierry, Inc. and Thirty-One Gifts, LLC; both parties’ motions for prevailing-party attorney’s fees and costs were denied.
What happened
In Pierry, Inc. v. Thirty-One Gifts, LLC, both sides asked the court to award attorney’s fees and costs under their contract. The court had entered judgment for each side on different contract and tort claims, so the remaining question was whether either side had prevailed overall.
The court applied California law, which generally identifies the prevailing party as the one that recovered greater relief on the contract. Pierry recovered $103,476.64, but lost its main dispute over the $550,000 Salesforce licensing fee. Thirty-One Gifts also was not entitled to fees because its liability theories exceeded the contract’s limits, and it owed Pierry for consulting services.
The court found that the case was a draw and denied both parties’ motions for prevailing-party fees and costs. Judge Laurel Beeler issued the order on August 25, 2020.
The detailed version
- Pierry, Inc. v. Thirty-One Gifts, LLC · No. 3:17-cv-03074
- Laurel Beeler
- Aug. 25, 2020
Background
The remaining issue was whether Pierry, Inc. or Thirty-One Gifts, LLC was the prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under their contract. The contract limited liability to outstanding fees and expenses, excluded consequential and related damages, and allowed the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees and costs.
The court had entered judgment for Thirty-One Gifts on Pierry’s claim that Thirty-One Gifts breached the contract. It entered judgment for Pierry on Thirty-One Gifts’ counterclaim that Pierry breached the contract by failing to perform consulting services. It also entered judgment for Thirty-One Gifts on counterclaims concerning Pierry’s demand for extra-contractual damages and its termination of access to the Salesforce platform. The court entered judgment for Pierry on Thirty-One Gifts’ tort claims concerning Pierry’s allegedly wrongful termination of access to that platform.
Legal standard
The court held that California law governed enforcement of the contract’s prevailing-party provision. Under California law, the prevailing party generally is the party that recovered greater relief in the contract action. The court may also determine that neither party prevailed and that neither is entitled to fees. When the parties achieve mixed results, the court compares the relief awarded with the parties’ demands and litigation objectives.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the case was “a draw at best.” Neither party achieved a complete victory on the contract claims, and neither prevailed sufficiently to justify an award of fees.
Pierry recovered $103,476.64, consisting of $83,583,42 for consulting services and $19,893.22 for the Salesforce license, according to the opinion. But Pierry’s main dispute was its claimed entitlement to the entire $550,000 Salesforce licensing fee, and Pierry lost that issue. The court also found that Pierry breached the contract by demanding extra-contractual fees, failing to follow the contract’s fee-dispute procedures, threatening to terminate access to the Salesforce platform, and terminating that access.
Thirty-One Gifts also was not the prevailing party. Its liability theories exceeded the contract’s limitation on Pierry’s liability, and it undisputedly owed Pierry for consulting services.
Disposition
The court denied the parties’ motions for prevailing-party fees and costs, identified as ECF Nos. 251 and 252. The order did not award fees or costs to either party.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.