Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCP03696, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP03696    Hearing Date: August 25, 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 cross-complained against each other for indemnification. The cross-claims have since been settled.   

On February 17, 2023, Judge Beckloff granted the writ of mandate and ordered Respondents to pay SORT $406,574.91 plus interest. On March 20, 2023, Judge Beckloff granted the County’s motion to strike SORT’s costs except as to $1,892.87. On July 13, 2023, this Court entered judgment in favor of SORT as the prevailing party, ordering the County to pay $406,574.91 plus $20,685.80 in interest, in addition to $1,892.87 of enforcement costs. The judgment also ordered Real Parties to pay $93,981.20 of enforcement costs.

On August 1, 2023, Real Parties filed the instant amended motion to set aside the judgment. On August 14, 2023, the County filed its response brief in support of setting aside the judgment. On August 14, 2023, SORT filed its opposition. Real Parties replied on August 18, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment: 1. Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and corrected. 2. A judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 663.)

DISCUSSION

The County’s brief points out that the judgment is inconsistent with the rulings in this case because it orders Real Parties to pay $93,981.20 in enforcement costs. Judge Beckloff struck SORT’s request for $93,981.20 and did not order Real Parties to pay enforcement costs. SORT does not explain why this term was included in its proposed judgment. The Court believed it was signing a proposed judgment in accordance with the settlement of the cross-claims. The order for Real Parties to pay $93,981.20 in enforcement costs is legally erroneous because SORT was expressly denied these costs, and there is no ruling or result in the case that requires Real Parties to pay this amount.  

CONCLUSION

            Real Parties’ motion to set aside judgment is GRANTED. The judgment entered on July 13, 2023 is vacated. The County is ordered to prepare an amended judgment.

            Alternatively, the parties may stipulate to dismissal of the entire case with prejudice because the award has been paid and the cross-claims have settled.