For the background of the case, see my post on the Judge's decision on summary judgment and other earlier posts.
The Judge's decision on attorney's fees is not surprising -- as I noted in my earlier post addressing Mikey Burnett's response to Zuffa et al.'s motion:
Given the weakness of the opposition, i.e. the fact that the fees were not challenged as unreasonable and/or unnecessary and the fact that plaintiff did not even address the merits of the contractual arguments, I think the motion for attorney's fees will be granted.And Judge Navarro held as follows in her decision:
Because Plaintiff has failed to address the substance of Defendants’ Motion and because the Court finds that the contracts provide for attorney’s fees, reasonable fees can be awarded to Defendants.For more on the substance of the contracts, see my earlier post addressing defendants' motion.
The Court next analyzed whether the purported fees were reasonable and found that they were.
Accordingly, the Court awarded defendants $52,996.00 in attorney’s fees.