Judge Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case 37-2022-00043096-CU-BC-CTL 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2022-00043096-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023 09:00:00 AM C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00043096-CU-BC-CTL HAIDET VS DEL MAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Attorney Fees, 07/03/2023

Defendant Del Mar Woods Homeowners Association's Motion to Be Deemed Prevailing Party, For an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and for a Judgment of Dismissal is GRANTED. (ROA 76.) All objections are overruled.

The court finds that a judgment of dismissal should be entered as to Defendant HOA and that Defendant HOA is a prevailing party for the purposes of attorney's fees. Fees and costs are awarded in the requested amount of $48,229.08.

1. Dismissal The court sustained Defendant HOA's demurrer with leave to amend on March 17, 2023.

Unless otherwise ordered, after a ruling on a demurrer, a party has 10 days to file their amended complaint. (Rules of Court, Rule 3.1320(g).) Generally, the time runs from the date of service of notice of the court's decision, 'unless the notice is waived in open court, and the waiver is entered in the minutes.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 472b.) This court's departmental rule is that notice is waived unless otherwise stated. Plaintiff has argued that the court's rule cannot overcome the statutory requirement.

Even if that is true, it is without consequence because when Plaintiff ultimately did file their amended complaint, they did so without naming Defendant HOA. By doing so, Plaintiffs acquiesced to the sustaining of the demurrer and lost their right to file a voluntary dismissal. (Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 781, 783, 785; see also Law Offices of Andrew L. Ellis v. Yang (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 869, 878 [voluntary dismissal is improper 'when the procedural posture is such that it is inevitable the plaintiff will lose'].) Specifically, '[w]hen a general demurrer to a petition is sustained, and the plaintiff declines to amend, he practically confesses that he has alleged in his pleading every fact he is prepared to prove in support of his action. Therefore, in such a case, nothing remains to be done except to render judgment for the defendant.' (Wells, supra, 29 Cal.3d at 783, 785 [quotation marks omitted] [quoting Goldtree v. Spreckels (1902) 135 Cal. 666, 672].) That Plaintiffs later attempted to voluntarily dismiss Defendant HOA is of no consequence as their FAC omitted Defendant HOA had already been filed. (ROA 51.) Accordingly, the voluntary dismissal was properly rejected by the court. (ROA 52.) Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 581(f)(2) provides, 'The court may dismiss the complaint as to that defendant when . . . after a demurrer to the complaint is sustained with leave to amend, the plaintiff fails to amend it within the time allowed by the court and either party moves for dismissal.' The court finds that a judgment of dismissal should be entered in favor of Defendant HOA. Defendant is to prepare and submit the judgment within 10 days.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2974899 17 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: HAIDET VS DEL MAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 37-2022-00043096-CU-BC-CTL 2. Fees Civil Code section 5975(c) states that 'in an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs.' Here, Defendant HOA is a prevailing party. (See Champir, LLC v. Fairbanks Ranch Assn. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 583, 590 ['The analysis of who is a prevailing party under the fee-shifting provisions of the [Davis-Stirling] Act focuses on who prevailed 'on a practical level' by achieving its main litigation objectives.']; Castro v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1020 [same].) In viewing the record in this case on a practical level, Defendant HOA clearly achieved its litigation objectives. Defendant HOA's demurrer was sustained (ROA 28) and when Plaintiffs amended their complaint (ROA 51) they omitted Defendant HOA. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant HOA is not the prevailing party because Plaintiffs might still be a prevailing party in the overall litigation, but that is irrelevant. What matters is who is the prevailing party between Plaintiffs and Defendant HOA.

Defendant HOA achieved its litigation objectives by succeeding in its demurrer which led to Plaintiff omitting it from its First Amended Complaint ('FAC') and now to Defendant's judgment dismissal.

Whereas in Champir, nothing in the record suggested that '[r]ather than face trial, Plaintiffs dismissed their claims' and actually achieved some of their litigation goals through injunctive relief (Champir, supra, 66 Cal.Ap.5th at 595), here the record indicates that Plaintiffs knew their claims against Defendant HOA had failed at the demurrer stage and decided not to move forward with a complaint that included allegations against Defendant HOA.

Gilbert v. Nat'l Enquirer (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1277 is also distinguishable. There, the defendant's demurrer was sustained as to some causes of actions, but not others. In other words, the plaintiff's case was still live against the same defendant. When plaintiff later chose to voluntarily dismiss the remaining claims, the trial court and court of appeal held that there was no definitive prevailing party.

That is not the case here, where all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant HOA were found to be meritless at the demurrer stage and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint without any claims against Defendant HOA.

Defendant HOA has requested $48,229.08 in fees and costs. This includes $44,630.00 in attorneys' fees for the underlying matter, $869.08 in costs, and $2,800.00 in fees-on-fees. The attorneys' time on this matter was billed at $350 per hour and paralegal time was billed at $150 per hour. Defendant HOA has provided billing records and declarations in support of these fees. The rates and time spent are reasonable. (See PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1094-1095 [trial courts have broad discretion to determine the amount of reasonable fees].) The motion is granted in full.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2974899 17