Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case Number: 21STCP03696, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCP03696, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP03696 Hearing Date: May 8, 2024 Dept: 82

Save Our Rural Town v. Department of the Auditor-Controller for Los Angeles County

Case No. 21STCP03696

Order Denying Motion to Tax/Strike Costs

INTRODUCTION

The Real Parties in Interest—Doug Gaudi, Joanna Gaudi, Paul Zerounian, and Robert Friedman, collectively the “Real Parties”—filed a memorandum of costs seeking $1,102.50 relating to filing and motions fees, and fees for electronic filing or service. Petitioner Save Our Rural Town (“SORT”) filed a motion to tax these costs, arguing that they were incurred in connection with cross-complaints to which Petitioner was not a party. The motion is denied.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In its amended petition, Petitioner Save Our Rural Town (“Petitioner” or “SORT”) sought a writ of traditional mandate directing Respondent County of Los Angeles (“County”) to deposit with the court the full amount necessary to satisfy a money judgment that Petitioner obtained against Respondent in a different litigation. The County filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against the Real Parties. Because the cross-complaint did not seek any writ relief, the court (Beckloff, J.) ordered the cross-complaint severed and transferred to an independent calendar court. (See Court’s Minute Order, dated May 7, 2022.) The Real Parties also filed a cross-complaint against the County for indemnity. The cross-complaints were assigned to Department 32 (Murphy, J.). (See Court’s Minute Order, dated June 6, 2022.)

On February 17, 2023, the court (Beckloff, J.) granted Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate. The court found that “Petitioner is entitled to a traditional writ of mandate requiring the County to pay it $406,574.91 plus interest as computed under Government Code section 970.1, subdivision (c).” (Court’s Order, dated February 17, 2023.) On or about March 30, 2023, Petitioner filed a proposed judgment. As relevant to the instant motion, paragraph 7 of the proposed judgment ordered the Real Parties to pay Petitioners’ enforcement costs in the amount of $93,981.20 plus statutory interest. On April 10, 2023, Real Parties filed objections to paragraph 7 of the proposed judgment.

On June 20, 2023, the County filed a notice in Department 32 (Murphy, J.) stating that the County and the Real Parties reached an unconditional settlement of the cross-actions. On June 28, 2023, the court (Murphy, J.) granted the Real parties’ ex parte application to vacate future hearing dates, retain jurisdiction, and dismiss the cross-complaints. (See Reply Taber Decl. Exh. 3.) On July 10, 2023, Petitioner filed a notice of settlement before Department 86 (Beckloff, J.) stating that because the cross-actions had settled, the court may enter judgment on the petition for writ of mandate.

On July 13, 2023, the court (Murphy, J.) entered judgment in favor of Petitioner and against the County. Paragraph 7 of the judgment ordered the Real Parties to pay Petitioners’ enforcement costs in the amount of $93,981.20 plus statutory interest. After receiving notice of the judgment, the Real Parties’ attorney requested that Petitioner’s attorney stipulate to vacate the judgment. Petitioner’s attorney refused. (Braly Decl. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, Real Parties filed an ex parte application to vacate the judgment, which was denied, and then a motion to vacate the judgment. Petitioner opposed the motion. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9.) On August 25, 2023, the court (Murphy, J.) granted the motion to vacate the judgment. The court’s order states, in part: “The order for Real Parties to pay $93,981.20 in enforcement costs is legally erroneous because SORT was expressly denied these costs, and there is no ruling or result in the case that requires Real Parties to pay this amount.” (Minute Order filed 8/25/23.)

On December 8, 2023, the court (Beckloff, J.) entered a new judgment on the petition, which removed the paragraph ordering Real Parties to pay Petitioners’ enforcement costs. This new judgment also includes a paragraph stating that “Real Parties are the prevailing parties against Petitioner.” (See also Order on OSC re Entry of Judgment filed 12/8/23.) On January 8, 2024, the Real Parties filed a memorandum of costs seeking total costs of $1,102.05 in connection with the motion to set aside the judgment, the ex parte application to set aside the judgment, the objection to the proposed judgment, and a stipulation to continue an OSC.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700, subdivision (b) provide that a motion may be made to strike or tax costs in a cost memorandum. The memorandum of costs must be “verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1700(a)(1).)

DISCUSSION

Petitioner contends that the cost memorandum should be struck in its entirety because the costs were incurred in connection with the cross-complaints, which were severed and transferred to Department 32, and were not “necessarily incurred” in connection with the petition for writ of mandate. The court is not persuaded by this argument. Although the cross-claims were transferred to an independent calendar court, they nonetheless remained part of the same legal action.

More important, the Real Parties’ costs were all incurred challenging paragraph 7 of the judgment lodged by Petitioner, which incorrectly included enforcement costs against the Real Parties in connection with the writ petition. In fact, Petitioner was not awarded enforcement costs against the Real Parties and did not prevail against the Real Parties. (See Court’s Order, dated December 8, 2023, at 2.) Nevertheless, Petitioner refused the Real Parties’ request to stipulate to vacate the judgment that included paragraph 7 and also opposed Real Parties’ motion to vacate the judgment. Accordingly, Judge Beckloff ruled that Real Parties are the prevailing parties against Petitioner. (See Ibid.; see also Judgment, dated December 8, 2023.) Under the “one judgment rule,” this judgment and the related litigation necessarily related to the writs case. Accordingly, the court finds that Real Parties’ costs were necessarily incurred in this case and are recoverable against Petitioner.

Petitioner argues that Judge Murphy eventually dismissed the cross-complaints. (See Reply 3-4.) Petitioner cites no authority for its contention that costs reasonably incurred by Real Parties, in connection with a judgment filed by Petitioner in this writ action, are not recoverable.

Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion to tax costs is denied. Petitioner’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court.