Reile v. Live Stores CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2011-00097722-CU-BC-CTL;37-2013-00072527-CU-BC-CTL
- Trial judge
- John S. Meyer
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), McINTYRE, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court awarded $20,070 in attorney fees to the defendants after they prevailed on a demurrer in a prior action. The Court of Appeal affirmed the award, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the fees should be reversed if he prevailed in a companion appeal, noting that the underlying judgment in the fee-generating case had already been affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order awarding $20,070 in attorney fees to respondents“Reile does not dispute the amount of the attorney fees award or its legal basis; therefore, we have no occasion to address those issues.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the fee award because the plaintiff did not challenge the legal basis or amount of the fees, only arguing that they should be reversed if he won a separate, companion appeal. Since the underlying judgment in the case that generated the fees had already been affirmed on a previous appeal, the condition for reversing the fees (reversal of the judgment) did not occur. The court correctly applied the principle that costs and fees generally fall with the judgment, but since the judgment stood, the fees also stood. |
Authorities
- relied: Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270 — An order awarding costs falls with a reversal of the judgment.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound but extremely brief. It correctly identifies that the plaintiff's argument is conditional on a different case outcome and notes that the underlying judgment in the fee case was already affirmed, making the fee award secure. However, it relies on judicial notice of an unpublished opinion for the status of the companion case, which is permissible under Rule 8.1115(b)(2) but makes the reasoning dependent on external, non-precedential material.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe trial court awarded respondents $20,070 in attorney fees after they prevailed on demurrer in a prior action. On appeal, Reile argued only that the fee order should fall if the companion appeal from the underlying judgment succeeded; because the Court of Appeal had affirmed the judgment in the companion appeal, it affirmed the fee order.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order awarding $20,070 in attorney fees to respondents following their successful demurrer“In light of the fact that we did not reverse the trial court's decision to sustain the demurrer in Reile's previous appeal, we have no basis for reversing the attorney fees award here.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Appellant did not challenge the amount or legal basis of the fee award; his sole argument was derivative of the companion appeal. Since the companion appeal affirmed the judgment, the Allen v. Smith principle that a costs award falls with reversal of the judgment has no application, and the court properly treated unraised issues as forfeited. The court did not articulate a standard of review because no substantive challenge to the award was presented. |
Authorities
- relied: Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270 — An order awarding costs (including attorney fees) falls with a reversal of the underlying judgment; the court relied on it to show that absent reversal, the fee award stands.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly disposes of the only argument raised: because the underlying judgment was affirmed in the companion appeal, the fee award does not fall under Allen v. Smith. The court appropriately declined to address the amount or legal basis of the award, which appellant did not contest, and properly took judicial notice of the companion appeal under rule 8.1115(b)(2).
Opinion
Filed 12/22/15 Reile v. Live Stores CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WOLFGANG REILE, D067638
Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 37-2011-00097722-CU-BC-CTL; LIVE STORES, INC. et al., 37-2013-00072527-CU-BC-CTL)
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John S.
Meyer, Judge. Affirmed.
Sandler, Lasry, Laube, Byer & Valdez and Thomas R. Laube for Plaintiff and Appellant.
The Law Office of Geoffrey C. Chackel and Geoffrey C. Chackel; Duckor Spradling Metzger & Wynne and Robert M. Shaughnessy, for Defendants and Respondents.
Wolfgang Reile appeals the trial court's order awarding $20,070 in attorney fees to respondents Live Stores, Inc, Mega Super Stores, Inc. and Christopher Williams in a previous case in which respondents prevailed on their demurrer, and we affirmed on appeal. Reile's contention is that "if [he] prevails in the companion appeal (D066758)1 the order awarding attorneys' fees and costs should also be reversed." We affirm.
DISCUSSION
Reile does not dispute the amount of the attorney fees award or its legal basis;
therefore, we have no occasion to address those issues. He relies on this court's opinion in Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1284, in which we reiterated that an order awarding costs falls with a reversal of the judgment. (Id. at p. 1284.) In light of the fact that we did not reverse the trial court's decision to sustain the demurrer in Reile's previous appeal, we have no basis for reversing the attorney fees award here.
1 On our own motion we take judicial notice of the files in the companion case. (Reile v. Live Stores, Inc. (Oct. 23, 2015, D066758) [nonpub. opn.].) (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d)(1), 459, subd. (a).) Although that opinion was not published, and thus has no precedential value, we mention it because it states reasons for a decision affecting the same defendant in another action (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b)(2)), and involves the same facts. 2 DISPOSITION The order is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- Allen v. Smith D036608 · 2002-01-23