Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC635651, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC635651    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff John Merino

RESPONDING PARTIES:     Defendants Manuel Garcia and Maria Garcia

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

On September 20, 2022, the Court of Appeal issued its Opinion which reversed this court’s March 24, 2021 order granting the motion for attorney’s fees filed by plaintiff John Merino (“Plaintiff”) and remanded the matter for rehearing in order to permit defendants Manuel Garcia and Maria Garcia (“Defendants”) to oppose Plaintiff’s request on the merits.

Plaintiff moves the court for an order awarding attorney’s fees in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $90,407.50.  Defendants oppose the motion, contending that Plaintiff should not be deemed the prevailing party and that Code of Civil Procedure Section 761.030 bars the recovery of costs and attorney’s fees in a quiet title action in which the defendant has defaulted.  (Opp., ¶¶ 8-9, 13, 24, 32.)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees because Plaintiff did not request attorney’s fees in his Complaint in connection with the only cause of action on which default judgment was entered.

“The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a).)  “[T]he language of section 580 does not distinguish between the type and the amount of relief sought.  The plain meaning of the prohibition against relief ‘exceed[ing]’ that demanded in the complaint encompasses both of these considerations.”  (Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 493-494.)  The primary purpose of section 580 “‘is to insure that defendants in cases which involve a default judgment have adequate notice of the judgments that may be taken against them.’”  (Sass v. Cohen (2020) 10 Cal.5th 861, 873.)

Plaintiff did not request or pray for attorney’s fees (1) in the allegations supporting the quiet title cause of action, or (2) in the corresponding prayer for relief.  (Compl., ¶¶ 9-21 [allegations in support of first cause of action for quiet title]; Compl., prayer for relief, pp. 8:25-9:2 [prayer for relief on first cause of action for quiet title].)  Although Plaintiff requested an award of attorney’s fees in connection with the third cause of action for imposition and foreclosure of equitable lien, the court dismissed that cause of action pursuant to the oral request of Plaintiff on July 10, 2019.  (Compl., prayer for relief, p. 9:16; Compl., ¶¶ 43-44.); July 10, 2019 Minute Order, p. 1.)

The court therefore finds that, because Plaintiff did not plead a request for attorney’s fees in connection with the first cause of action for quiet title, Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees based on the default judgment entered against Defendants on that cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a); Becker, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 495 [trial court exceeded its authority by granting attorney’s fees when the plaintiffs failed to include such a request in their complaint].)

ORDER

The court denies plaintiff John Merino’s motion for attorney’s fees.

The court orders defendants Manuel Garcia and Maria Garcia to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 5, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court