Fourth District, Division 2 Affirms Trial Court’s Award of No Costs to Cross-Defendant.
Plaintiff Gonzales brought a complaint against defendant Falzone involving various investment/partnership disputes, with Falzone filing a cross-complaint against Gonzales. After a bench trial, Falzone obtained relief under Gonzales’ complaint but was granted no relief under his cross-complaint. The trial court also denied Gonzales’ request for costs as the prevailing cross-defendant. He appealed this determination.
In Gonzales v. Falzone, Case No. E043848 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 10, 2009) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed the denial of costs to Gonzales.
Gonzales hinged his challenge on Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(a)(4), which does allow routine costs to a defendant as against a plaintiff who does not recover any relief against the prevailing defendant. The flaw in Gonzales’ analysis was that he did not focus on the holistic result. “Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, however, focuses on the total net relief in the action, not relief under any single pleading. Falzone did recover relief against Gonzales on the complaint. Thus, this was not a case in which the cross-complainant (Falzone) ‘d[id] not recover any relief against’ the cross-defendant (Gonzales). He simply recovered such relief in his capacity as defendant, rather than in his capacity as cross-complainant. (See Building Maintenance Service Co. v. AIL Systems, Inc., 55 Cal.App.4th 1014, 105-026 (1997).)” (Slip Opn., at p. 19.) Under the circumstances, the trial court had discretion not to award costs to either side.
BLOG UNDERVIEW—The trial judge who was affirmed on appeal was Riverside County Superior Temporary Judge Joan F. Burgess, a jurist before whom co-contributor Mike Hensley has appeared on several occasions (including a complex judicial foreclosure action). Judge Burgess was hard working and thoughtful on all of the appearances, even though Mike did not prevail on all of them on behalf of his clients.