Consent Judgment Was Silent On Issue, Allowing For Fee Award.
In City of Live Oak v. Oliveira, Case No. C063700 (3d Dist. July 15, 2011) (unpublished), City of Live Oak obtained civil penalties against three defendant trust properties in a nuisance abatement action. Even though the parties reached a consent judgment dealing with one specific costs issue, City moved for recovery of attorney’s fees of $23,910.30 under Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(d)(1), a specialized fee shifting provision in the nuisance abatement area. The lower court allowed the full request, prompting an appeal by defendant.
Fee award affirmed.
Defendant’s main argument was that the consent judgment removed the fee recovery issue from the fact. Not so, decided the reviewing appellate court.
The consent judgment was silent on whether City could pursue fees and costs on any of its causes of action, which means they are in play. (Chinn v. KMR Property Management, 166 Cal.App.4th 175, 184 (2008) [discussed in our August 24, 2008 post].) Even though there was a consent judgment provision relating to costs, it was narrowly tethered to defense contractual obligations under the judgment rather than the causes of action. The consent judgment was not ambiguous, so that all of the defense contractual arguments failed.