Prime Mechanical Service, Inc. v. Federal Solutions Group, Inc. et al

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 6/10/19. (mmcalc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2019)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PRIME MECHANICAL SERVICE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10
11

FEDERAL SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.,
et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Case No. 18-cv-03307-MMC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
CALIFORNIA'S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY'S FEES
Re: Dkt. No. 42

Before the Court is defendant Indemnity Company of California’s (“ICC”) “Motion

14

for Attorney’s Fees,” filed December 13, 2018, by which ICC seeks the fees it incurred in

15

defending an action brought against it by plaintiff Prime Mechanical Service, Inc.

16

(“Prime”) under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131, 3133. Prime has not filed a response.

17

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court rules as

18

follows.1

19
20

PROCEDURAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND
The Miller Act “requires a Government contractor to post a surety bond” to “protect

21

those who supply labor or materials to a contractor on a federal project,” see F.D. Rich

22

Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Indus. Lumber Co., Inc., 417 U.S. 116, 118, 121–22 (1974), and

23

provides that any person who has supplied such labor or materials but “has not been paid

24

in full . . . may bring a civil action on the payment bond for the amount unpaid,” see 40

25

U.S.C. § 3133(b)(1).

26
27
28

1

By order filed January 15, 2019, the Court vacated the hearing scheduled for
January 24, 2019. (See Order Vacating Hr’g on Mot., filed Jan. 15, 2019, at 1.)

1

On June 4, 2018, Prime, a subcontractor on a federal construction project located

2

in Richmond, California, filed a “Complaint for Breach of Contract and on Miller Act

3

Payment Bond” (“Complaint”). (See Compl., filed Jun. 4, 2018, at 1:11–13.) Prime

4

alleged therein that: (1) defendant Federal Solutions Group (“FSG”) was awarded a prime

5

contract by the United States for the above-referenced project; (2) FSG, pursuant to the

6

Miller Act, obtained the requisite payment bond for the contract, with ICC serving as the

7

surety on the bond; (3) Prime entered into a subcontract with FSG to perform design and

8

installation work for the project (hereinafter, “Subcontract”); and (4) FSG breached the

9

Subcontract by failing to pay Prime for the “design services” it provided. (See id. ¶ 14.)2

10

Based on the above allegations, Prime brought two causes of action, the first

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

against FSG and the second against ICC. In the First Cause of Action, Prime, relying on

12

the Subcontract, asserted against FSG a state law claim for breach of contract and

13

sought attorney’s fees “[p]ursuant to the terms of said agreement.” (See id. ¶ 16.) In the

14

Second Cause of Action, Prime, relying on the Miller Act payment bond, asserted a claim

15

against ICC for payment of the above-referenced design services and sought attorney’s

16

fees “[p]ursuant to the terms of said bond.” (See id. ¶ 23.)

17

On July 2, 2018, ICC moved to dismiss the sole count against it, the Second

18

Cause of Action, on two grounds: (1) Prime’s “design professional work [did] not

19

constitute labor or materials for purposes of” the Miler Act (see Mot. to Dism. Compl.,

20

filed Jul. 2, 2018, at 5:10–11), and, consequently, was “not recoverable under a Miller Act

21

payment bond” (see id. at 6:17–18); and (2) Prime’s suit was time-barred by the Miller

22

Act’s statute of limitations. On August 15, 2018, the Court granted the motion;

23

specifically, the Court agreed Prime’s design work did “not constitute ‘labor’ under the

24

Act” (see Order Gr. Def. ICC’s Mot. to Dism., filed Aug. 15, 2018, at 2:4–5), but granted

25

Prime leave to amend to allege the nature of the “on-site” work to which Prime had

26
27
28

2

The Court has previously set forth in greater detail the factual allegations on
which Prime’s claims against FSG and ICC were based. (See Order Gr. Def. ICC’s Mot.
to Dism., filed Nov. 28, 2018 (“Dismissal Order”), at 1–2.)
2

1

referred in its opposition (see id. at 2:11).
On August 31, 2018, Prime filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), realleging

2
3

both causes of action and adding allegations pertaining to said on-site work. Thereafter,

4

asserting the same two grounds as in its prior motion, ICC moved to dismiss the FAC.

5

(See Mot. to Dism. FAC, filed Sept. 14, 2018, at 3:10–15.) On November 28, 2018, the

6

Court granted ICC’s motion, again dismissing, in this instance without leave to amend, for

7

“failure to plead the requisite furnishing of ‘labor or material.’” (See Dism. Order at 6:13–

8

14.)

9
10

By the instant motion, ICC seeks an award of attorney’s fees, in the amount of
$15,130, “incurred in the defense of this action.” (See Mot. at 1:21–22, 5:19.)
DISCUSSION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

In cases brought under the Miller Act, “federal, not state, law . . . govern[s] the

13

award of [attorney’s] fees,” see United States ex rel. Reed v. C.E. Callahan, 884 F.2d

14

1180, 1185 (9th Cir. 1989), and, consequently, the “American Rule of fees applies,” see

15

id. Pursuant to said rule, attorney’s fees “are available only when authorized by statute

16

or an enforceable contract or, in the absence of either of these sources, when the losing

17

party has acted in bad faith or the successful party has conferred a substantial benefit on

18

a class of individuals.” See id. (noting “the Miller Act does not itself provide for fees”).

19

In support of the instant motion, ICC, relying on an attorney’s fees provision in the

20

Subcontract and on California Civil Code § 1717, contends ICC, “as the prevailing party,

21

is entitled to an award of its attorney’s fees.” (See Mot. at 4:7–8.)3

22

The above-referenced contractual provision states: “FSG shall . . . have the right

23

to . . . recover from Subcontractor [Prime] . . . all reasonable attorneys’ fees suffered or

24

incurred by FSG or by reason of or as a result of Subcontractor’s default or FSG’s actions

25

hereunder.” (See FAC Ex. B (Subcontract) ¶ 15.) The Subcontract contains no provision

26
27
28

ICC does not invoke “bad faith” or “substantial benefit” as a basis for an award,
see Reed, 884 F.2d at 1285, and the Court finds neither is applicable in the instant case.
3

3

1
2

for an award of fees to anyone other than FSG.
Where, as here, the United States is not a party to the subcontract, state law

3

applies to the interpretation thereof, and, accordingly, the Court applies California law.4

4

See Reed, 884 F.2d at 1182, 1185 (holding “state law controls the interpretation of Miller

5

Act subcontracts to which the United States is not a party”; applying § 1717 to contract

6

between subcontractor and prime contractor). Section 1717 provides:

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

In any action on a contract, whether 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 entitled to
reasonable attorney’s fees . . . .
Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a).
Relying thereon, ICC, without further elaboration, states, “[j]ust as Prime sought

13

fees in its [FAC], [d]efendant [ICC] also seeks attorney’s fees based on the same

14

contract.” (See Mot. at 4:6–7.) Although, as ICC asserts, § 1717 makes unilateral

15

attorney’s fees provisions reciprocal, see Reed, 884 F.2d at 1185 (holding § 1717’s

16

“reciprocity rule converts a one-way attorneys’ fees clause into a two-way avenue of

17

opportunity”), such reciprocity does not support ICC’s claim to fees.

18

First, application of the reciprocity provision to the Subcontract would convert the

19

one-way provision entitling FSG to attorney’s fees into a two-way provision entitling Prime

20

to such fees, a result in no manner of assistance to ICC. See id. (holding subcontractor

21

entitled to attorney’s fees notwithstanding subcontract provision “expressly limit[ing] the

22

availability of fees to the [prime] contractor”; explaining § 1717 “makes the clause as

23

applicable to [the subcontractor] as it is to [the prime contractor]”). Second, and most

24

importantly, ICC cannot rely on the attorney’s fees provision in the Subcontract because

25
26
27
28

The Subcontract contains a choice-of-law provision stating said contract “shall be
governed by the laws of the state where FSG’s office address is located” (see FAC Ex. B
¶ 36), and identifies FSG’s address as “2440 Camino Roman Suite 343[,] San Ramon
CA” (see id. at 1).
4

4

1

ICC is not a party to that contract, which is, as noted, between Prime and FSG. (See

2

FAC Ex. B at 1); see also Greg Opinski Constr., Inc. v. Braswell Constr., Inc., 2012 WL

3

10513, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012) (holding surety not entitled to attorney’s fees from

4

subcontractor under subcontract providing for payment of fees to prevailing party;

5

explaining surety was “not a party to that contract” and did not “otherwise demonstrate[]

6

that it [was] entitled to recover under the terms of the subcontract”); United States ex rel.

7

Renegade Equip., LLC v. Western Surety Co., 2009 WL 2143637, at *1 (D. Alaska Jul.

8

15, 2009) (holding, where surety was not signatory to subcontract providing for attorney’s

9

fees to prevailing party, surety not entitled to award of fees from subcontractor).
Moreover, although not set forth in ICC’s argument, to the extent ICC may be

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

asserting reciprocity based on a subcontractor’s entitlement to attorney’s fees from a

12

surety where such subcontractor prevails in an action against the prime contractor, see,

13

e.g., U.S. ex rel. Sherman v. Carter, 353 U.S. 210, 220–21 (1957) (holding Miller Act

14

“makes the surety liable on its payment bond” for defaulting contractor’s obligations,

15

including attorney’s fees, under labor agreement), any such reliance is misplaced.

16

Significantly, the purpose of the Miller Act is “to protect those whose labor and materials

17

go into public projects.” See id. at 216–17 (holding Miller Act “is highly remedial in

18

nature”; explaining “[t]he essence of its policy is to provide a surety who, by force of the

19

Act, must make good the obligations of a defaulting contractor to his suppliers of labor

20

and material”). Consistent therewith, the bond covers “the total amount payable by the

21

terms of the contract.” See 40 U.S.C. § 3131(b)(2). Nothing in the Act suggests it is

22

intended to protect, or ensure any payment to, the surety, and ICC provides no authority

23

even suggesting such a policy exists.

24

Lastly, to the extent ICC may be contending it stands in the shoes of FSG, any

25

such argument likewise is unavailing. As noted, Prime brought its claim against ICC

26

pursuant to the payment bond, which does not contain an attorney’s fees provision (see

27

FAC Ex. A), and ICC has not cited to any statute or case holding, where a prime

28

contractor prevails on a subcontract, the surety is entitled to the prime contractor’s
5

1

attorney’s fees. Indeed, to so hold would seem particularly inappropriate where, as here,

2

the surety defends solely on the claim brought against itself under the Miller Act, not on

3

the claim brought against the prime contractor for breach of contract. In any event, even

4

if such an argument had merit, it is unavailing here because no one has prevailed against

5

Prime on the Subcontract. FSG, although served with the summons and Complaint,

6

never appeared in the instant action, and the Court, following its order dismissing the

7

claim against ICC (see Dism. Order at 6:16–17), declined to exercise supplemental

8

jurisdiction over the claim against FSG. (See Order Dism. First Cause of Action, filed

9

Nov. 28, 2018, at 2:2–3) (dismissing claim against FSG “without prejudice to [Prime’s]

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

refiling [it] in state court”).)
In sum, ICC “has not established entitlement to attorney’s fees.” See Greg
Opinski Constr., 2012 WL 10513, at *3.
CONCLUSION

13
14
15
16

For the reasons stated above, ICC’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is hereby
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: June 10, 2019
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6