Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21SMCP00615, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCP00615    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
1514 7th Street, LLC v. City of Santa Monica et al., Case No. 21SMCP00615
Hearing Date August 9, 2022
Plaintiff 1514 7th Street, LLC’s Motion to be Deemed Prevailing Party

The City of Santa Monica issued an administrative citation against 1514 7th Street on June 14, 2021. 1514 alleges the citation was mailed to an incorrect address, so it did not learn of the citation until July 22, 2021; 1514 filed a petition arguing the citation was improper. The City dismissed the petition on the grounds that the request for review was not filed within 30 days of issuance of the citation. 1514 filed a petition for writ of mandate. On February 22, 2022, the City dismissed the underlying citation and refunded $1,000.00. On May 24, 2022, the court granted the City’s motion to dismiss, finding the proceeding was mooted by the dismissal. 1514 moves for a court determination that it is the prevailing party, entitled to recover costs under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1032(a)(4).

When a respondent or defendant voluntarily complies with a plaintiff or petitioner’s demand before judgment, mooting the case, plaintiff or petitioner is the prevailing party and entitled to costs. Lewin v. Bd. of Trustees of Pasadena Unified School Dist. (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 977.

1514 argues that since it obtained the relief it sought this litigation –dismissal of the citation and refund of the fine – it should be deemed the prevailing party. It cites the minute order that there was “no relief the court could currently grant,” since 1514 already obtained relief. Additionally, 1514 presents the City’s letter dismissing the citation “in the interest of justice” and promising to refund the fine. Petitioner exhibit 1.

The City argues 1514 is not the prevailing party because there is no evidence that bringing the petition caused it to change its behavior and dismiss the citation. The City admits it dismissed the petition “to preserve judicial resources and unnecessary litigation costs[.]” This indicates dismissal of the citation was likely caused by 1514 bringing a petition for writ of mandate.

The City also argues Lewin is inapplicable because, unlike in that case, the court did not make any substantive findings in 1514’s favor. While the cases are not perfectly analogous, it is clear that here, as in Lewin, 1514 obtained its litigation objective by causing the City to comply with its requested relief. 1514 is the prevailing party, entitled to costs. GRANTED.