Representative Image (AI-generated)
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 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. The restaurant had requested $81,875 in legal fees and another $25,741.20 in court reporter costs, according to the ruling available on Justia. In March 2022, Hagestad and his wife dined at the restaurant and were impressed with the food and service.
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 appeals court found that it had not properly identified which legal expenses were specifically related to proving that a catering contract existed. The case involved Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC, which operates a high-end restaurant in Orange County, California, and John Hagestad. They later contacted its chief operating officer, Dave Hanna, about arranging meals for their family and friends during the Masters golf tournament in April.
During the tournament, the restaurant provided breakfast, dinner and a full bar for five days, serving an average of 25 guests per meal. After the event, the restaurant sent Hagestad an invoice for $74,960, which included a $5,000 discount. 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. However, the court rejected the restaurant’s demand for the full $81,875. The appeals court found that the lower court had reasonably awarded only $1,950.
Therefore, the absence of an agreed price did not automatically mean that no enforceable contract existed. Hagestad disputed the amount, saying he would have made different arrangements had he known the final cost. The judges also clarified that a contract does not necessarily need to specify a price if the amount can be determined objectively. 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 family unexpectedly left two days earlier than planned.
Their son was competing at the tournament in Augusta, Georgia, and the family expected between 20 and 30 people at each meal. The family approved the menu, but the two sides never signed a written contract or discussed the price of the catering services. Dave Hanna sent them a proposed menu covering breakfast and dinner for seven days.