Volpe Co. v. Sausal Corp. CA1/5

── Volpe Co. v. Sausal Corp. CA1/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 Volpe Co. v. Sausal Corp. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE VOLPE COMPANY, INC., A171199 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Marin County Super. Ct. No. CIV1402511) SAUSAL CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. In this second appeal in a public works construction dispute between the prime contractor, Sausal Corporation (Prime Contractor), and a subcontractor, Volpe Company, Inc. (Subcontractor), Prime Contractor appeals the trial court’s award of attorney fees to Subcontractor. We hold that Subcontractor is entitled to fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717,1 and affirm. BACKGROUND During construction, a dispute arose between Prime Contractor and Subcontractor.2 (Volpe Co., Inc. v. Sausal Corp. (Sept. 29, 2021, A157577 & 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code. 2 The facts underlying the dispute are not relevant to this appeal. 1 A159372) [nonpub. opn.] (Volpe v. Sausal).) Subcontractor sued for breach of contract and other claims. (Ibid.) A jury found that Prime Contractor had breached the parties’ contract (Contract) under one of multiple theories asserted by Subcontractor. (Ibid.) The judgment included an award of contractual attorney fees. (Ibid.) On appeal, this court reversed the judgment as to breach of contract. (Volpe v. Sausal, supra, A157577 & A159372.) Because, “[u]nder the special verdict form, once the jury determined Prime Contractor breached the Contract [under the reversed theory], it did not determine whether Prime Contractor committed any other breach,” we “remand[ed] Subcontractor’s breach of contract claim rather than direct entry of judgment for Prime Contractor on this claim.” (Ibid.) We also reversed and remanded the attorney fee award without deciding Prime Contractor’s challenge that it was not authorized by section 1717. (Volpe v. Sausal, A157577 & A159372.) On remand, following a bench trial, the trial court found Prime Contractor had breached the Contract under other theories asserted by Subcontractor. Subcontractor moved for attorney fees. Following briefing and argument, the trial court—a different bench officer from the one presiding over the initial proceedings—again found Subcontractor was entitled to fees under the Contract. DISCUSSION Prime Contractor argues the Contract does not contain an attorney fee provision within the meaning of section 1717, and therefore Subcontractor is not entitled to contractual fees.3 We disagree. 3 Prime Contractor does not dispute that Subcontractor was the prevailing party or challenge the reasonableness of the fees awarded. 2  Section 1717, subdivision (a) provides, “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