Opinion
21-35837 21-35864
11-17-2022
SELF STORAGE ADVISORS, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SE BOISE BOAT & RV STORAGE LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellant. SELF STORAGE ADVISORS, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SE BOISE BOAT &RV STORAGE LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Argued and Submitted October 18, 2022 Portland, Oregon
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 1:18-cv-00294-BLW for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Before: PAEZ and BADE, Circuit Judges, and R. COLLINS, [**] District Judge.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Self Storage Advisors, LLC (SSA) and SE Boise Boat &RV Storage, LLC (BBRV) appeal the district court's attorney's fees determination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's denial of attorney's fees for abuse of discretion and the application of legal standards regarding attorney's fees de novo. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Kent, 909 F.3d 272, 278 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). We reverse and remand.
The district court applied the incorrect standard when it determined that "each party prevailed on one count" of the complaint and therefore neither party would receive an award of attorney's fees. SSA was the prevailing party because it succeeded on its breach of contract claim, and BBRV did not bring any counterclaims. Clarke v. Latimer, 437 P.3d 1, 6 (Idaho 2018) (finding that plaintiffs were entitled to attorney's fees where they raised a successful claim with a single issue, and there were no counterclaims). Although SSA pleaded alternative claims, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows pleading in the alternative, and parties should not be forced to choose between pleading all potentially viable claims and recovering fees. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(2). Indeed, Idaho law recognizes that when a plaintiff advances "alternative theories of recovery in an attempt to obtain only one type of relief," judges should not "split the single 'claim' upon which the plaintiffs had prevailed into prevailing and nonprevailing 'theories'" Nguyen v. Bui, 191 P.3d 1107, 1113 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008) (citing Nalen v. Jenkins, 741 P.2d 366 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987)); see also Burns v. County of Boundary, 818 P.2d 327, 330 (Idaho Ct. App. 1990) (noting that "under modern pleading practice, a plaintiff may advance alternative theories relating to an alleged set of facts" and individual theories should be construed "as different ways to obtain one specific recovery-a single claim"). Thus, BBRV was not a prevailing party despite successfully eliminating an alternative claim. Moreover, SSA recovered more than de minimis or nominal damages. See In re Sarria, 606 B.R. 854, 862-63 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2019); cf. Burns, 818 P.2d at 330 (trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting award of attorney's fees to those incurred in obtaining injunctive relief when plaintiff recovered $45 of the $1,000,000 sought on remaining claims).
Accordingly, costs on appeal shall be awarded to SSA as prevailing party.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.