Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case 21STCP03696 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 21STCP03696, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

SAVE OUR RURAL TOWN v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Petitioner, Save Our Rural Town, sought a writ of mandate compelling Respondent, County of Los Angeles, to satisfy a money judgment ($406,574.91) issued in a related action. Petitioner also sought statutory interest on the money judgment as well as Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs related to collection ($60,337.37). On February 17, 2023, the court granted Petitioner’s request as to the money judgment, $406,574.91 and statutory interest.

In response to Petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees (based on Code of Civil Procedure sections 685.040 and 685.070) [see Opening Brief 6:16-20], the County filed a motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 685.070, subdivision (c). The County contends this proceeding does not permit a cost award. Petitioner disputes the County’s contention.[1]

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The court strikes Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees costs of $60,337.37 and allows costs of $1,892.87.

The court entered a $406,574.91 money judgment in favor of Petitioner against the County and other parties jointly and severally. The County failed to pay. Petitioner brought this proceeding to obtain payment from the County on the obligation. Petitioner prevailed and the court entered an order in its favor on February 17, 2023.

In addition to payment from the County on the money judgment (and statutory interest), Petitioner sought its attorneys’ fees and costs as reflected in a memorandum of costs filed concurrently with its Opening Brief. The memorandum of costs reflects attorneys’ fees of $58,444.50 and miscellaneous costs of $1,892.87.

As currently presented to the court, the issue of Petitioner’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs, if any, is procedurally murky at best.

Nonetheless, the broader issues raised in this dispute are capable of resolution.

First, Petitioner is not entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Enforcement of Judgments Law at Code of Civil Procedure section 680.010, et seq. The rule is clear; all divisions within title 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply against the County. (California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1995) 11 Cal.4th 342, 347.)

Second, while Downen’s, Inc. v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 856, 864 [Downen’s] may support Petitioner’s entitlement to fees under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032, subdivision (b) and 1033.5, subdivision (b)(10) for work incurred in this proceeding, Petitioner has not demonstrated it is entitled to attorneys’ fees under a contract, statute or law. In Downen’s, the court relied upon Code of Civil Procedure section 1036—a statute—addressing reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs in an inverse condemnation proceeding to find entitlement to fees in a later proceeding to enforce a money judgment against a government entity.[2] Petitioner makes no showing to support its claim a contract, statute or law supports its entitlement to attorneys’ fees in this proceeding pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (b)(10).[3]

Third, as a prevailing party in this proceeding, Petitioner is entitled to its pre-judgment costs as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, subd. (b), 1095, 1105, 1109.) As the County makes no specific challenge to the costs claimed by Petitioner in its memorandum of costs, the motion to strike costs of $1,892.87 is denied.

[1] As the court continued the motion to strike and any cost award to today’s date, as agreed by the parties on February 17, 2023, any notice issues have been resolved.

[2] Downen’s discussion of Wallace v. Consumers Cooperative of Berkeley, Inc. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 836 is not helpful to Petitioner here. The two proceedings in Wallace v. Consumers Cooperative of Berkeley, Inc. were related to the same substantive issue. The proceedings here—an enforcement action against the County—is wholly unrelated to the earlier proceeding resulting in the money judgment against the County.

[3] Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 awards successful public interest litigants with attorneys’ fees where the three statutory requirements are established. (Vasquez v. State of California (2008) 45 Cal.4th 243, 250-251.) The burden is on the fee claimant to establish each statutory requirement, including that its litigation costs transcend its personal interest in the litigation. (Save Open Space Santa Monica Mountains v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 235, 246.)