First and Fourth Districts Overturn Fee Awards After Reversal of Underlying Judgments.
Reversals of underlying judgments can also mean that attorney’s fees awards are vacated or remanded if properly appealed, as the next two cases illustrate.
The First District, Division Four, in Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley, Case No. A117744 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 25, 2008) (unpublished), reversed a trial court judgment after concluding that a contractual claims procedure was the exclusive mechanism trumping a statutory claim procedure under Government Code section 910. The trial court earlier had granted the City $750,000 in attorney’s fees under Public Contract Code section 7107(f), which provides for such an award in any action for the collection of retention proceeds wrongfully withheld by a public entity or contractor. Aggrieved party Arntz separately appealed the fee award (which we have urged litigants and practitioners to do—see “Cases: Appealability”). Because the underlying judgment was reversed, the fee award was vacated as well. (Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 80 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1436-1437 (2000).)
The Fourth District, Division One, in Gogri v. Jack in the Box, Inc., Case No. D050838 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 25, 2008) (certified for publication), reversed a summary judgment grant even though Gogri had voluntarily dismissed his entire remaining action before any tentative decision. The trial court subsequently granted Jack in the Box’s request for an attorney’s fees/costs award in the amount of $270,810.77, which was incorporated into an amended judgment that was timely appealed by Gogri. On review, the Court of Appeal—in an opinion that is must reading on the issue of when voluntary dismissals will trump pending dispositive motion hearings—decided that the voluntary dismissal prevailed. Gogri then advanced the notion that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain a fee/costs request. However, the appellate panel only partially agreed with the fee/costs challenge. As to Gogri’s contractual claims, the challenge was correct because Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 614-619, 622 (1998) held that the pretrial dismissal prevented a fee award in these situations. However, the appellate court remanded to have the trial court consider an amended request for fees/costs limited solely to Gogri’s noncontract/tort causes of action—given that the lower court had awarded Jack in the Box fees and costs on all causes contained in the complaint (including the impermissible contract claims). So, although avoiding over $270,000 in fees/costs, the door was open for the trial court to award something on the noncontract counts.