A family meal arrangement during one of golf’s biggest tournaments turned into a costly legal dispute after a California restaurant sent a bill for nearly $75,000 without discussing the price beforehand. The restaurant had agreed to provide meals for a golfer’s family and friends during the Masters tournament in Augusta, Georgia. However, after the family left two days early and received the invoice, it challenged the amount. The restaurant sued and won a jury award of $60,391, but its subsequent attempt to recover tens of thousands of dollars in additional legal fees and court reporting costs was largely rejected.In a judgment dated October 29, 2026, in Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC v. Hagestad (G065313A), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, upheld a lower court’s decision to award the restaurant only $1,950 in additional legal fees. According to the ruling available on Justia, the restaurant had requested $81,875 in legal fees and another $25,741.20 in court reporter costs. The appeals court found that it had not properly identified which legal expenses were specifically related to proving that a catering contract existed.
How a catering arrangement turned into a dispute
The case involved Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC, which operates a high-end restaurant in Orange County, California, and John Hagestad. In March 2022, Hagestad and his wife dined at the restaurant and were impressed with the food and service. They later contacted its chief operating officer, Dave Hanna, about arranging meals for their family and friends during the Masters golf tournament in April.Their son was competing at the tournament in Augusta, Georgia, and the family expected between 20 and 30 people at each meal. Dave Hanna sent them a proposed menu covering breakfast and dinner for seven days. The family approved the menu, but the two sides never signed a written contract or discussed the price of the catering services.During the tournament, the restaurant provided breakfast, dinner and a full bar for five days, serving an average of 25 guests per meal. The family unexpectedly left two days earlier than planned. After the event, the restaurant sent Hagestad an invoice for $74,960, which included a $5,000 discount. Hagestad disputed the amount, saying he would have made different arrangements had he known the final cost. In response, Dave Hanna withdrew the discount and added another $5,000 for the time and delay involved in seeking payment. This brought the bill to $84,960, which Hagestad refused to pay.
Jury awards restaurant $60,391
The restaurant subsequently filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit against Hagestad. During the legal proceedings, it asked him to admit that he had entered into a catering agreement covering all seven days of the Masters. Hagestad objected that the request was vague, ambiguous and contained multiple issues. However, he denied the entire request rather than admitting the parts he accepted and disputing the remaining details. The case went to trial, where Hagestad acknowledged that the restaurant had provided food and services during the tournament. However, he argued that their reasonable value was lower than the amount charged.The jury found in favour of the restaurant but awarded it $60,391, less than the original invoice. After the verdict, the restaurant sought $81,875 in cost-of-proof attorney fees under Section 2033.420 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The provision allows parties to recover reasonable expenses when an opposing party unreasonably refuses to admit a fact that is subsequently proved during trial.
Why the court limited additional legal fees
The restaurant argued that Hagestad should have admitted the existence of the catering agreement because emails between the two sides and the approved menu showed that they had agreed on the services. The appeals court agreed. It explained that even though the request for admission included several details that were not all established at trial, Hagestad had a duty to admit the portions that were true and deny only those he disputed.The judges also clarified that a contract does not necessarily need to specify a price if the amount can be determined objectively. Therefore, the absence of an agreed price did not automatically mean that no enforceable contract existed. However, the court rejected the restaurant’s demand for the full $81,875. It had submitted all its legal fees incurred after Hagestad denied the request without separating the expenses related to proving the contract from those spent on other issues. Since the main issue at trial was the value of the catering services, proving that a contract existed had required relatively little time and effort. The appeals court found that the lower court had reasonably awarded only $1,950.
Court rejects $25,741 in reporting costs
The restaurant also challenged the decision to strike its entire claim for $25,741.20 in court reporter costs. However, the appeals judges found that it had failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that the claimed transcript expenses were for transcripts ordered by the court or were otherwise recoverable under California law. It had also failed to produce the underlying invoices to establish the amount.In its October 29 ruling, the California Court of Appeal affirmed both lower court orders. It directed each side to bear its own costs of the appeal. The decision leaves the restaurant with its $60,391 jury award but no additional recovery beyond the $1,950 in legal fees. It also highlights the importance of clearly documenting contract terms and providing a proper breakdown of expenses when seeking reimbursement during litigation.
