Does California's legal framework for adjudicating prevailing parties' claims for contractual attorney's fees violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Kleidman requests that this petition be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 US 89, 94 (2007). Kleidman sued respondent RFF Family Part! nership, LP (“RFF”) in connection with a contract. The purported contract had a supposed clause, which provided that the prevailing party could recover its attorney’s fees from the losing party (hereinafter, “Attorney’s Fees Clause”). The court found that RFF prevailed. RFF then made a motion for $40,072.50 in attorney’s fees, based on the Attorney’s Fees Clause. Kleidman i opposed RFF’s motion and refused to pay any money at all. ; As RFF claimed $40,072.50 in contractuallyj owed attorney’s fees, and as Kleidman refused to : pay, one sees that from RFF’s perspective, Kleid, man breached the contract and RFF suffered \ $40,072.50 in damages. : F However, under California law, a prevailing : party’s contractually-owed attorney’s fees are deemed costs, and the matter is summarily adjudi| cated as a claim for costs. Thus RFF’s motion was | adjudicated summarily as a claim for costs. On the other hand, California law generally provides that claims for money owed on a contract are adjudicated plenarily as claims for damages. | ¢ é a ee ii | Question 1. Does California’s legal framework | | — whereby prevailing parties’ claims for contrac: tual attorney’s fees are adjudicated summarily as | claims for costs, whereas other, contractual, mone: tary claims are adjudicated plenarily as claims for \ damages — violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s : Equal Protection Clause? California law provides that in certain scenarios, a party can make a claim for its attorney’s fees as damages, in which case the claims for . attorney’s fees are adjudicated plenarily as claims : for damages. Question 2. Does California’s legal framework ' -—whereby prevailing parties’ claims for contrac: tual attorney’s fees are adjudicated summarily as claims for costs, whereas other types of claims for attorney’s fees are adjudicated plenarily as claims for damages — violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? Under California law, parties generally have the right to trial by jury in connection with contrac: tual, monetary claims. Question 3. Does California’s legal framework — whereby prevailing parties’ claims for contractual attorney's fees are determined by the court, whereas other contractual, monetary claims may / be determined by the jury — violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? iii | STATEMENT OF