A high-stakes catering dispute between a California-based restaurant group and a family has concluded in the appellate court, with judges ruling against the eatery’s attempt to recover substantial additional legal fees. The conflict, which stemmed from an informal arrangement to provide meals for a family during the prestigious Masters golf tournament in Augusta, Georgia, resulted in a jury award of $60,391, significantly lower than the restaurant’s original invoice.
The legal saga began in March 2022, when John Hagestad and his wife, impressed by their experiences at the Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC in Orange County, contacted the company’s chief operating officer, Dave Hanna. They sought to hire the restaurant to cater meals for a group of 20 to 30 people throughout the duration of the Masters tournament in April. While a menu was approved by the family, the two parties never signed a formal written contract nor discussed the specific pricing of the catering services beforehand.
Over the course of five days, the restaurant provided breakfast, dinner, and a full bar service, serving approximately 25 guests per meal. The situation became contentious when the family departed the tournament two days earlier than originally planned. Upon receiving an invoice for $74,960—a figure that included a $5,000 discount—Hagestad disputed the amount, asserting he would have structured his arrangements differently had he known the ultimate cost. Following this challenge, the restaurant rescinded the discount and added a $5,000 surcharge for the delays in payment, pushing the total invoice to $84,960.
Hagestad refused to pay the updated bill, prompting Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group to initiate a breach-of-contract lawsuit. Throughout the litigation, the restaurant sought to prove the existence of the agreement. When the case proceeded to trial, Hagestad acknowledged that the services had been rendered but contested the total value of the bill. The jury ultimately sided with the restaurant, granting an award of $60,391.
Following the verdict, the restaurant turned its attention to recovering its legal expenses. Under Section 2033.420 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, a party may recover reasonable expenses if the opposing party unreasonably refuses to admit a fact that is later proven during trial. The restaurant argued that Hagestad should have admitted to the existence of the catering agreement, given the exchange of emails and the menu approval. It requested $81,875 in attorney fees and $25,741.20 in court reporting costs.
In a judgment dated October 29, 2026, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the request. The appellate judges agreed with the restaurant that Hagestad had a duty to admit the true portions of the agreement rather than issuing a blanket denial, even if the request contained certain inaccuracies. The court further clarified that a contract remains enforceable even without a specified price, provided the amount can be determined objectively.
Despite this acknowledgment, the court firmly rejected the request for $81,875 in legal fees. The judges noted that the restaurant failed to specify which legal expenses were directly related to proving the contract existed, versus those spent on other aspects of the trial, such as the value of the catering services. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the lower court's decision to award only $1,950 in additional fees, effectively closing a case that highlighted the risks of informal service agreements.
Comments