Because A Statutory Basis Allowed For Attorney’s Fees Recovery, Denial Based On A Lack Of A Contractual Basis For Fees Substantively Was Erroneous Where A Costs Memorandum Filing Allowed For Fee Recovery.
In Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC v. Sklar, Case No. B345528 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 9, 2026) (unpublished), somewhat of a follow-up case to our previous post, defendant did agree to an injunctive relief judgment in plaintiff’s favor under the Immigrant Consultants Act, which does have a fee-shifting clause. Plaintiff filed a post-judgment costs memorandum for post-judgment costs under CCP § 685.040, prompting a defense motion to tax costs. That tax costs motion was granted based on a perception plaintiff did not file a contract breach action, just a statutory action, such that plaintiff’s failure to file a noticed motion for recovery of fees was deficient. The appellate court reversed, because the lower court misinterpreted the reach of post-judgment costs provisions. The reach does not extend just to contract fees, because the second sentence of section 685/040 allows recovery of fees “otherwise provided by law,” which encompasses a statutory fee-shifting provision. The legal error required a remand, although no opinion was expressed on whether plaintiff met her burden to show the fee request was reasonable or incurred in connection with efforts to enforce a judgment.