Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case Number: 21STCP03696, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 21STCP03696, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

This matter is before the court on an Order to Show Cause re Entry of Judgment. At the heart of the dispute is whether judgment should be entered requiring Real Parties in Interest, Doug Gaudi, Joanna Gaudi, Paul Zerounian and Robert Friedman, should be required to pay Petitioner, Save Our Rural Town, pursuant to a memorandum of costs filed by Petitioner. Petitioner’s memorandum of costs reports Petitioner incurred almost $94,000 in enforcement costs—most of which represents attorneys’ fees.

The court finds Petitioner is not a prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4) because Petitioner did not recover any relief against Real Parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4) [prevailing party includes “a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant”].)

The court agrees and adopts those arguments made by Real Parties filed in response to the OSC on November 27, 2023. The court finds the following facts determinative:

· The underlying petition sought no relief from Real Parties. Petitioner alleged a single cause of action against Respondents. The prayer for relief sought relief only against Respondent. To the extent Petitioner now reads a non-specific request in the prayer for enforcement costs, Petitioner’s position is unconvincing.[1] Moreover, Petitioner specifically sought relief through its petition under Government Code section 970.2, a statute applicable to public entities only.

· Petitioner had an enforceable judgment against Real Parties as of June 22, 2021 from Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS155732. The judgment made Respondents and Real Party jointly and severally liable for certain attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Accordingly, Petitioner could obtain no relief against Real Party in this proceeding—a collection action against Respondents.

· The court questions whether Petitioner properly named Real Parties as Real Parties in Interest in this litigation. Given the joint and several liability of Respondents and Real Parties, this litigation could “affect their rights, interests, and obligations.” (Petitioner’s Request filed November 14, 2023 at 3:22-23.) Real Parties had already incurred the obligation.

· The court finds Petitioner’s position this litigation caused Real Parties to pay Petitioner disingenuous. The only order made by this court impacted Respondents. That Real Parties and Respondents may have reach an accord about the joint and several obligation, and whether Real Parties paid some part of the joint and several obligation is irrelevant. That the court ordered Respondents to pay Petitioner caused Petitioner to be paid. The court could have taken no enforcement action against Real Parties based on this petition and the result in this litigation. In fact, Petitioner’s Opening Brief, like its petition, sought no relief from Real Parties.

· Real Parties never appeared in this proceeding, and Petitioner sought no relief against them.

· While Petitioner served Real Parties with their memorandum of costs, Petitioner is not entitled to any costs from Real Parties since Petitioner was not the prevailing party as against Real Parties. Thus, Petitioner is not “entitled as a matter of right to recover” its costs from Real Parties. (Response to Real Parties filed December 1, 2023 at 3:9.)

· Friends of Spring Street v. Nevada City (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1104 because the case concerned Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4)’s provision for “in situations other than as specified.”

Based on the foregoing, the court intends to revise the judgment submitted by Petitioner to (1) specify at item 1 that Petitioner is the prevailing party as against Respondents only; (2) strike items 5, 6, 7 and 8; and (3) add a new item 5 specifying Real Parties are the prevailing parties as against Petitioner.

[1] Given the allegations in the petition, no reasonable person would “know[] that [Petitioner’s] request for enforcement costs and attorneys’ fees was not limited to the County.” (See Petitioner’s Request filed November 14, 2023 at 3:25-26.)