Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCP03696, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP03696    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On November 10, 2021, Petitioner Save Our Rural Town (SORT) filed a petition for a writ of mandate compelling the County of Los Angeles (County) to pay an award of $406,574.91 in attorneys’ fees and costs that SORT obtained against the County in a CEQA case. SORT filed an amended petition on November 16, 2021.

The underlying dispute stems from a development project by Real Parties in Interest Doug Gaudi, Joanna Gaudi, Paul Zerounian, and Robert Friedman (collectively, Real Parties.) The County approved Real Parties’ applications for two land use entitlements in connection with the project. SORT challenged the County’s project approvals and partially prevailed, resulting in the judgment mentioned above. The County and Real Parties were held jointly and severally liable for the judgment, and have cross-complained against each other for indemnification.

SORT seeks a writ of mandate compelling the County’s payment of the CEQA judgment and also seeks to recover the attorneys’ fees and costs of enforcing the judgment. SORT filed its opening brief for the writ of mandate and its memorandum of costs on December 19, 2022. The County opposes both. Addressed herein is the County’s motion to tax costs, filed on December 29, 2022.

LEGAL STANDARD

Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Id., § 1032(b).) “‘Prevailing party’ includes the party with a net monetary recovery,” certain defendants, or “[i]f any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the ‘prevailing party’ shall be as determined by the court . . . .” (Id., subd. (a)(4).)   

DISCUSSION

The issue of costs is premature because the merits of the writ of mandate have not been heard, and therefore there is no “prevailing party” for purposes of cost recovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1032.) SORT argues that even if its memorandum was filed too early, the “time limitations pertaining to a memorandum of costs are not jurisdictional.” (Haley v. Casa Del Rey Homeowners Assn. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 863, 880.) But even disregarding any procedural defects, SORT’s entitlement to costs still cannot be determined when there is no prevailing party.

The parties also dispute whether SORT is entitled for recover costs under the Enforcement of Judgments Law (EJL). The applicability of the EJL to this case is a point of contention in the underlying writ, which again, has not been heard. Even if the EJL applied to this case, SORT cannot be awarded the costs of enforcing a judgment when its right to enforce the judgment has not been determined.

CONCLUSION

            The County’s motion to tax costs is GRANTED.  SORT’s request for costs is premature.  SORT may request costs when, and if, it is determined to be prevailing party.