Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2022-00001247-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 29, 2024

01/30/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Civil Court Trial 37-2022-00001247-CU-MC-CTL CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

A. The request for an equitable offset is DENIED.

To establish an equitable offset, 'mutuality is essential.' Harrison v Adams (1942) 20 Cal.2d 646, 649.

'[T]he principle of mutuality requires that the debts should not only be due to and from the same person, but in the same capacity.' Eistrat v. Humiston (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 89, 91.

Here, the four challenged judgments are between the City of San Diego and San Diegans for Open Government ('SDOG'). However, SDOG is not a party to this action. Moreover, even if SDOG was a party, mutuality would still be lacking because SDOG is not the judgment creditor with respect to the attorney fees awarded in the SB 615 Litigation, Street Light Litigation, and FJC Litigation. Rather, SDOG's counsel, Briggs Law Corporation, is the judgment creditor because attorney fees belong to the attorney who labored to earn them. See Flannery v. Prentice (2001) 26 Cal.4th 572, 590; Hernandez v. Siegel (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 165, 174. The fact that Flannery and Hernandez involved attorney-client disputes is a distinction without a difference. See Crasnick v. Marquez (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 5 (finding attorney fees belong to the attorney in a case involving lien priority). The City cites no authority holding otherwise. Accordingly, the court finds that the City has not established that use of an equitable offset is appropriate. See Evid. Code § 500; see also Conrad v. Ball Corp. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 439, 444 (explaining that party 'seeking an offset against a money judgment has the burden of proving the offset').

Assuming arguendo that an equitable offset is proper, the court finds that the equities weigh against offsetting the judgments. Both the SB 615 Litigation and the FJC Litigation were resolved by stipulated judgments in which the City specifically agreed that SDOG was entitled to recover its attorney fees.

(BLC Exs. 23, 52, 54.) Yet now, just a few years later, the City seeks to nullify all or parts of these fees awards through the use of the requested offset. Such conduct runs counter to the maxim that '[h]e who comes into equity must come with clean hands.' Wilson v. S.L. Rey, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 234, 244. While the court recognizes that the 2016 judgment against SDOG remains unsatisfied, California law provides various methods to enforce it. See Code Civ. Proc. § 680.010, et seq. There is no evidence that the City has done anything in that regard.

B. The other relief requested in the FAC is DENIED.

The FAC seeks 'a declaration from this Court establishing the priority of the City's offset, the liens filed by iNewsource and Hearn, and Briggs' alleged attorney's liens and directing disbursement of the Disputed Funds.' (FAC at ¶ 25; see also Prayer at ¶ 4.) However, the City has not presented any Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059880  3 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION [IMAGED]  37-2022-00001247-CU-MC-CTL argument or evidence regarding disbursement beyond its request for an offset. Thus, the City has failed to meet its burden with respect the other relief requested in the FAC. See Evid. Code § 500; see also In re Randall's Estate (1924) 194 Cal. 725, 728-29 (''Contentions supported neither by argument nor by citation of authority are deemed to be without foundation, and to have been abandoned.'').

C. Judicial notice is taken as requested. Evid. Code § 452(c), (d).

D. The City is directed to submit a proposed judgment for the court's signature regarding distribution of the deposited funds.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059880  3