Prompt Payment Statute Fee Shifting Was Now In Play For City.
When a judgment is reversed as a matter of law by an appellate court in favor of the other side, that usually means good things for the other side–any fee and costs awards go POOF! and the prior losing party may prevail so that fees/costs can be sought by the new winner under a fee shifting statute.
These types of situations are well captured by the result in P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad, Case No. D055533 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 1, 2011) (unpublished), where an appellate court reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff and found, as a matter of law, that the City should have been granted a motion for nonsuit. As a result of this reversal, two things happened: (1) an costs award of $33,657.62 for plaintiff’s expert witness fees fell; and (2) City was now the prevailing party such that it could seek recovery of attorney’s fees under the fee shifting provisions of the prompt payment statutes.
Also, although the appellate court could fix the fees on appeal, it embraced the “better practice” of remanding so that the lower court could determine such fees. (Security Pacific National Bank v. Adamo, 142 Cal.App.3d 492, 498 (1983).)