California Court Slashes $81,000 Legal Fee Claim In Hagestad Masters Catering Dispute

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, handed down a judgment on October 29, 2026, in Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC v. Hagestad (G065313A). The court affirmed a lower court's ruling that limited the restaurant's recovery of additional legal fees to a mere $1,950. This decision stands in stark contrast to the $81,875 the restaurant originally sought under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.420.

The dispute traces back to March 2022, when John Hagestad and his wife dined at the Orange County-based restaurant and later contacted Chief Operating Officer Dave Hanna. The family needed catering for their son’s participation in the Masters golf tournament in Augusta, Georgia, expecting 20 to 30 guests per meal. Dave Hanna sent a proposed menu for seven days, which the family approved. Yet, neither party signed a written contract or finalized a price.

During the tournament, the restaurant served breakfast, dinner, and a full bar for five days, averaging 25 guests per meal. Hagestad’s family departed two days early, prompting the restaurant to send an invoice for $74,960, inclusive of a $5,000 discount. Hagestad disputed the amount, arguing he would have made different arrangements had he known the cost. In response, Dave Hanna withdrew the discount and added another $5,000 for delay, bringing the total to $84,960. Hagestad refused to pay.

The restaurant filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit. During proceedings, it asked Hagestad to admit to a catering agreement covering all seven days. Hagestad denied the entire request, arguing it was vague. At trial, the jury found in the restaurant's favor but awarded only $60,391. The restaurant then sought $81,875 in cost-of-proof attorney fees, claiming Hagestad unreasonably refused to admit the contract's existence.

The appeals court agreed that Hagestad should have admitted the portions of the request supported by emails and the approved menu. However, the court rejected the full fee demand because the restaurant failed to separate expenses related to proving the contract from those incurred on other issues, such as determining the reasonable value of the services. The court also struck the restaurant's claim for $25,741.20 in court reporter costs, finding the lower court's decision reasonable.