Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Palisades Roofing Company  

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs George Pino and Wendy Pino  

 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs George and Wendy Pino own a condominium unit located at 840 20th Street, Unit 7, Santa Monica, California.  (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶1.)  Their home is part of a complex managed by Defendant Laurel Square Owners Association (“HOA”).  (FAC ¶¶1, 2.)  The HOA and each of its members are bound by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.  (“CC&R’s”).  (FAC ¶¶11, 12.)     

Plaintiffs’ home has a history of recurring roof and wall leaks.  (FAC ¶¶13-35.)  The CC&R’s require the HOA to repair and maintain the roof and exterior walls.  (FAC ¶¶40-44.)  According to Plaintiffs, the HOA hired unlicensed and unqualified contractors to perform a patchwork of repairs to Plaintiffs’ home that failed within weeks.  ((FAC ¶¶13-35.)          

The operative (first amended) complaint alleges claims for (1) breach of governing documents, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) negligence against HOA, (4) negligence against Doe Defendants, (5) nuisance, (6) continuing trespass, and (7) declaratory relief.   

On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs substituted Defendant Palisades Roofing Company (“PRC”) in place of one of the Doe Defendants.  PRC was named as a defendant to all causes of action except the third cause of action.   

PRC demurred to the Complaint, arguing that the alleged acts and omissions giving rise to the Complaint began in 2017 and continued through January 2021, but PRC did not exist when the alleged events occurred.   PRC was formed on December 6, 2021 – the same day Plaintiffs filed their complaint and nearly a year after the last alleged acts or omissions took place.  The Court sustained PRC’s demurrer without leave to amend.   

This hearing is on PRC’s motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civ. Code §5975.  PRC argues that §5975 mandates the award of attorneys fees to a prevailing party in an action seeking to enforce CC&Rs; by virtue of the Court sustaining its demurrer without leave to amend, PRC is the prevailing party, and any fees it incurred on claims separate from the enforcement claim are recoverable because they were incurred for issues common to causes of action for which fees are permitted.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

Attorneys’ fees are recoverable as costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 when authorized by statute. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(l0)(B).)  Civil Code section 5975(c), which is part of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act governing relations between homeowner associations and their members, provides that a prevailing party in an action to enforce the governing documents between the parties “shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” (Civ. Code § 5975(c).)  Because the Act defines “governing documents” as including CC&Rs, this section applies to actions to enforce CC&Rs. (Civ. Code, § 4150.)¿ 

The test for determining a prevailing party is “whether a party prevailed on a practical level by achieving its main litigation objectives.” (Almanor v. Lakeside Villas Owners Assn v. Carson (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.)  Accordingly, a court must “compare the relief awarded on the… claims with the parties’ demands on those same claims and their litigation objectives as disclosed by the pleadings, trial briefs, opening statements, and similar sources.” (Hsu v. Abbarra (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 876.)¿ 

Under § 5975(c), once a court resolves the threshold issue of the prevailing party, a court has no discretion to deny attorney’s fees. (Almanor, 246 Cal.App.4th at 776.)  The applicable language of Section 5975(c) states that “…the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” (Emphasis added.) 

DISCUSSION 

The Court first considers the procedural arguments raised by Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs argue the motion for attorneys’ fees is premature because there is no notice of entry of judgment.  The Court agrees.  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1)¿allows a party to “serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal .…” California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(b)(1)¿refers to¿California Rules of Court, rule 8.104¿which requires a “‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment .…”  Since there is no written entry of judgment, PRC’s motion for¿attorneys’ fees is premature.  

The Court next turns to the merits of the motion for attorneys’ fees.  PRC argues it is entitled to attorneys’ fees under Civ. Code §5975 because it is a prevailing party in an action to enforce CC&R’s.  Plaintiffs argue that §5975 only entitles homeowners or the homeowners’ association to recover attorneys’ fees.  The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. 

Under Civ. Code §5975, only the owner of a separate interest or the homeowners’ association may enforce the CC&R’s.  (Civ. Code §5975 subd. (a).)  And the same applies for enforcing any governing document other than the CC&R’s.  (Civ. Code §5975(b).)  It follows, therefore, that a prevailing party on an action to enforce the CC&R’s must be the owner of a separate interest or the homeowners’ association.  PRC is neither.  Accordingly, it cannot recover attorneys’ fees under §5975.  

No other contract or statute entitles PRC to attorneys’ fees.  California follows the American rule which provides that each party to a lawsuit must bear its own attorneys’ fees.  (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 278.)  The American rule applies unless there is a statute or contract that allows for attorneys’ fees.  PRC does not raise any statute or contract entitling it to attorneys’ fees, aside from § 5975.  Accordingly, the American Rule applies, and the Court denies PRC’s motion for attorneys’ fees.   

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES PRC’s motion for attorneys’ fees.   

      

DATED:  September 29, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court