Gray1CPB Case Result Does Not Change After Remand From Cal. Supreme Court.
On April 9, 2014, we posted on Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc., Case No. G047429 (4th Dist., Div. 3), which held that a judgment creditor was precluded from seeking post-judgment enforcement attorney’s fees based on accepting a cashier’s check for less than the putative post-judgment fee recovery from judgment debtor. The California Supreme Court subsequently granted review, but remanded for the Fourth District, Division 3 to reconsider in light of Conservatorship of McQueen, 59 Cal.4th 602 (2014).
The 4/3 DCA, in a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Moore, issued its remand decision on January 27, 2014 (published like the earlier one which became superseded)—and the result did not change.
McQueen did not alter things because attorney’s fees incurred in an effort to enforce the judgment are subject to the time limit set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 685.080, namely, before the judgment is satisfied in full. The problem here was that the judgment creditor did accept the cashier’s check rather than rejecting it and filing a motion or memorandum for enforcement costs and fees. So, the section 685.080 time bar applied.