Order | Filed: September 05, 2025
Rose Leaf Cleaning, Inc. v. Sonder Hospitality USA, Inc.
Contract: Other | New York Southern
Order
CLERK'S JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees. Fees in favor of Sonder Hospitality USA, Inc. against Rose Leaf Cleaning, Inc. in the amount of $ 266,817.96. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasonsstated in the Court's Order dated September 4, 2025, that Sonder's Motion for Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN PART; ORDERED, that Sonder is entitled to recover the fees and costs it incurred in defending this matter; and it is further ORDERED, that Rose Leaf shall pay t he sum of $266,817.96, which represents the costs ($6,049.46) and attorney's fees ($260,768.50) that Sonder incurred in defending this case. Defendant is not entitled to prejudgment interest on attorneys' fees and costs. &quo t;In a diversity case such as this one, state law governs the award of prejudgment interest." Koziar v. Blammo, Ltd., 759 F. Supp. 3d 543, 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (citing Schipani v. McLeod, 541 F.3d 158, 164-65 (2d Cir. 2008)). (Signed by Clerk of Court Tammi M Hellwig on 9/5/2025) (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Package) (tp)
Order | Filed: September 04, 2025
Rose Leaf Cleaning, Inc. v. Sonder Hospitality USA, Inc.
Contract: Other | New York Southern
Order
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES granting in part and denying in part 70 Motion for Attorney Fees. It is hereby: ORDERED, that Sonder's Motion for Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN PART; ORDERED, that Sonder is entitled to recove r the fees and costs it incurred in defending this matter; and it is further ORDERED, that Rose Leaf shall pay the sum of $266,817.96, which represents the costs ($6,049.46) and attorney's fees ($260,768.50) that Sonder incurred in defending this case. Defendant is not entitled to prejudgment interest on attorneys' fees and costs. "In a diversity case such as this one, state law governs the award of prejudgment interest." Koziar v. Blammo, Ltd., 759 F. S upp. 3d 543, 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (citing Schipani v. McLeod, 541 F.3d 158, 164-65 (2d Cir. 2008)). In its August 26, 2024 Opinion & Order, the Court ruled that "California law applie[d] to Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint, for breach o f express and implied contract, respectively," ECF No. 67 at 10, and that "New York law [applied] to [Rose Leafs tort] claims," id. (second alteration in original). Prejudgment interest is not available here under either California l aw or New York law. "The Court notes that the [Sonder Housekeeping Services Agreement, dated as of November 22, 2021, (the "Agreement")] does not provide for payment of prejudgment interest on the attorney's fees award." Sentry Ins. A Mut. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., No. 05 Civ. 5015 (SVW), 2007 WL 9705855, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007) (declining to award prejudgment interest on attorneys' fees); see ECF No. 28-1 (Agreement). Pursuant to California law, "[a]bsent an explicit [provision providing for prejudgment interest], the Court looks to California Civil Code§ 3287(a)." Sentry, 2007 WL 9705855, at *4. Although "Section 3287(a) provides that prejudgment interest may be awarded for damages[,] [t]he Ninth Circuit has stated that costs and attorney's feesare not damages." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the Agreement provides thatthe "non-prevailing party... shall pay all co sts and expenses," Agreement at 15.16, the "costs and attorney's fees" on which Defendant seeks prejudgment interest "are not damages." Sentry, 2007 WL 9705855, at *4; see also Instrumentation Lab'y Co. v. Binder, N o. 11 Civ. 965 (DMS), 2013 WL 12049072, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2013),affd, 603 F. App'x 618 (9th Cir. 2015) ("[B]ecause the attorneys' fee [s] clause in the SPA contemplates an action to enforce the indemnity obligation, such fees and costs are not damages, but are recoverable as prevailing party fees. [Plaintiff]'s request for prejudgment interest on its award of attorneys' fees and costs is therefore denied." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) ). Thus, "the Court finds that prejudgment interest should not be awarded." Sentry, 2007 WL 9705855, at *4. Under New York law, "interest may only be added to a contractual award of attorneys' fees if explicitly provided for in the agreement." Ursa Minor Ltd. v. Aon Fin. Prods., Inc., No. 00 Civ. 2474 (AGS) (JCF), 2001 WL 1842042, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2001), report and recommendation adopted, No. 00 Civ. 2474 (AGS) (JCF), at ECF No. 66 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2001). As previously explained, the Agreement does not "provide[] for" interest, id., in the attorneys' fees provision at Section 15.16 or otherwise. See Agreement. (Signed by Judge Jennifer H. Rearden on 9/4/2025) (vfr)