Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 20SMCV00786, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 20SMCV00786, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV00786 Hearing Date: December 19, 2023 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Pacific Horizon Holdings, LLC v. Meehan et al., Case No. 20SMCV00786

Hearing Date December 19, 2023

Plaintiff Pacific Horizon Holdings’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Motion to Tax Costs

On January 5, 2023 the court granted the Meehan defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Pacific Horizon Holdings, LLC’s first two causes of action for breach of CC&Rs and nuisance. The court denied summary judgment as to the third cause of action for declaratory relief. After trial the court ruled Pacific Horizon was entitled to a road easement for egress and ingress over a disputed portion of street in the parties’ common interest community. The court issued its final judgment on September 20, 2023.

On August 10, 2023, the court denied the Meehans’ motion for attorney fees, finding the attorney’s fees provision in the CC&Rs did not apply to the dispute. On November 16, 2023, the court granted the Meehans’ motion to tax Pacific Horizon’s costs under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1032. Pacific Horizon now moves for prevailing party attorney’s fees under Cal. Civ. Code §5975.

Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1032 defines “prevailing party” for purposes of awarding costs; its definition does not apply to other statutes that award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1128. When a statute does not explicitly define “prevailing party,” “which party, if either, prevailed in an action” is left to the discretion of the trial court. Id. In a case with “mixed results,” where a party receives only some of the relief sought, a court can determine, after comparing each party’s objectives to the relief awarded, that there was no prevailing party entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. Olive v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 804, 827.

Under Cal. Civ. Code §5975, “[i]n an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” Pacific Horizon argues this was an action “to enforce the governing documents” of the parties’ common interest community. The court agrees. Standing for all three causes of action was conferred by Pacific Horizon’s status as a member of a community governed by CC&Rs. The action was grounded in allegations that the Meehans violated duties imposed by the governing documents. Even Pacific Horizon’s common law claim for nuisance stemmed from the allegation that the Meehans violated easement rights created by the community governing documents.

In opposition, the Meehans argue §5975 does not apply. They cite the court’s August 4, 2023 tentative ruling (made final on August 10, 2023) that they were not entitled to prevailing party attorney’s fees because this case was a lawsuit between neighbors, not between the HOA and a community member. The Meehans argue the same logic should apply, and the court should rule this was not an enforcement action, since the HOA was not a party.

The Meehans’ August motion was brought under the CC&Rs’ attorney’s fees provision, which provided for fees in lawsuits between real property owners hand and the Association. 8/4/2023 minute order pg. 2. In this motion, Pacific Horizon seeks attorney’s fees under §5975, not under the CC&Rs. The statute does not limit availability of fees based on the identity of the parties, and the court’s August ruling is not applicable. This was a case to enforce governing documents, so §5975 applies.

Since §5975 does not define “prevailing party,” under Galan, the court has discretion to determine which party, if either, prevailed. Pacific Horizon sought money damages and injunctive relief. Its first two causes of action were dismissed on summary judgment; Pacific Horizon obtained no money damages. After trial on the third cause of action, the court issued a narrower version of the declaration Pacific Horizon sought.

Overall, the result was mixed. Pacific Horizon sought monetary damages and obtained none. It secured easement rights that were the gravamen of its claim. Neither objective was more significant than the other, and the ultimate result included successful claims and unsuccessful ones. Under Galan and Olive, the court will exercise its discretion and conclude there was no prevailing party for purposes of determining a fee award, so Pacific Horizon is not entitled to attorney’s fees or costs. DENIED.

Motion to Tax Costs

Pacific Horizon seeks to tax the Meehans’ memorandum of costs. The Meehans obtained favorable judgments on two of the three causes of action. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1032 defines “prevailing party,” and provides “[i]f any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the “prevailing party” shall be determined by the court, and under these circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not[.]”

Consistent with the analysis above, the court exercises its discretion under §1032 and determines there was no “prevailing party” for purposes of awarding costs. This does not contradict the court’s September 20, 2023 judgment, which included a blank space for defendants’ costs award. After considering the memorandum of costs and Pacific Horizon’s motion to tax, the final judgment will award $0 in costs. GRANTED.