gno.law

Roudi v. Paydar CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D079405 · 2022-06-22 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2019-00070138-CU-PA-CTL
Trial judge
Gregory W. Pollack
Outcome
reversed — Reversed.
Area
civil
Panel
O'Rourke (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Judith D. McConnell

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:49Z · confidence high

The trial court awarded the defendant $445,661 in attorney fees and costs, ruling he was the prevailing party for successfully vacating an arbitration award. The Court of Appeal reversed the fee order, holding that because the underlying order vacating the award was reversed in a concurrent appeal, the fee order based on that judgment was also reversed.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Order awarding defendant $445,661 in contractual attorney fees and $14,473 in costs
“An order awarding costs falls with a reversal of the judgment [or order] on which it is based.”
unclearerroragree with court
agree with court

Authorities

  • relied: Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270 — An order awarding costs falls with a reversal of the judgment on which it is based.
  • relied: Friends of Hastain Trial v. Coldwater Development LLC (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1013 — Supports the principle that fee orders are tied to the underlying judgment.
  • relied: Samples v. Brown (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 787 — Supports the principle that fee orders are tied to the underlying judgment.
  • relied: San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308 — Disapproved Allen v. Smith on other grounds, but the specific proposition regarding costs falling with the judgment was not disapproved.

The appellate opinion: sound — sound

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The superior court awarded Reza Paydar $445,661 in contractual attorney fees and $14,473 in costs as the prevailing party after he defeated Roudi and Interwest's petition to confirm an arbitration award and succeeded in vacating it, treating the post-arbitration judicial proceedings as a discrete proceeding for fee purposes. The Court of Appeal reversed the fee and cost order because, in a concurrently filed opinion (D078558), it reversed the order vacating the arbitration award and directed confirmation of the award, so the fee order fell with the order on which it was based.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Award of contractual attorney fees and costs to Paydar as prevailing party in post-arbitration judicial proceedings
“An order awarding costs falls with a reversal of the judgment [or order] on which it is based.”
unclearerror (other)agree with court
The court did not independently evaluate whether post-arbitration proceedings are a discrete proceeding for fee purposes; it reversed solely because the underlying vacatur order was reversed in the companion appeal. The rule that a fee or cost award falls with reversal of the judgment or order on which it is based is well established in the cited authorities (Allen v. Smith, Samples v. Brown, Friends of Hastain Trail), and Paydar did not contest the proposition. Given the companion reversal, the result follows directly.

Authorities

  • relied: Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270 — An order awarding costs falls with a reversal of the judgment on which it is based, and the matter of costs is then set at large.
  • relied: Friends of Hastain Trail v. Coldwater Development LLC (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1013 — Reversal of the underlying judgment requires reversal of the dependent attorney fee award.
  • relied: Samples v. Brown (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 787 — An attorney fee award predicated on a reversed judgment or order must itself be reversed.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion applies the settled rule that a fee and cost award cannot survive reversal of the order on which it depends, and the respondent did not dispute that proposition or the cited authority. The result is fully derivative of the companion opinion in D078558, which this opinion does not reproduce, so the merits of the vacatur reversal cannot be assessed from this opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 6/22/22 Roudi v. Paydar 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

ALEX ROUDI et al., D079405 Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants, and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. v. 37-2019-00070138-CU-PA-CTL)

REZA PAYDAR,

Defendant, Cross-complainant, and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gregory W. Pollack, Judge. Reversed. Cooley, Steven M. Strauss and Erin Carey Trenda for Plaintiffs, Cross- defendants and Appellants Alex Roudi and Interwest Capital Corporation. Koning Zollar, Blake M. Zollar and Neal R. Gibeault for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant Interwest Capital Corporation. Williams Iagmin and Jon R. Williams; English & Gloven, Donald A. English and Christy I. Yee for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent. Plaintiffs, cross-defendants and appellants Alex Roudi and Interwest Capital Corporation (Interwest) appeal from an order awarding defendant, cross-complainant and respondent Reza Paydar $445,661 in contractual attorney fees and $14,473 in costs after Paydar successfully moved to vacate an arbitration award in favor of Roudi and Interwest. The superior court ruled Paydar was the prevailing party entitled to attorney fees and costs because he “(1) defeated Interwest’s and Roudi’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and (2) succeeded in vacating that arbitration award . . . .” Though the court acknowledged that Paydar had not yet prevailed on the parties’ substantive arbitration claims, it nevertheless issued the award in Paydar’s favor, reasoning that “post-arbitration judicial proceedings are considered ‘a discrete legal proceeding for purposes of determining a party’s right to an award of attorneys’ fees.’ ” Citing Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270 (disapproved on other grounds in San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 315), plaintiffs contend the order will be mooted if this court reverses the order vacating the arbitration award in their favor. Paydar does not challenge that proposition or address the cited authority. In our concurrently filed opinion, Roudi et al. v. Paydar, No. D078558, we reverse the superior court’s order vacating the arbitration award, and direct the court to grant plaintiffs’ petition to confirm the award. In doing so, we agree with plaintiffs that the attorney fee order in Paydar’s favor must be reversed. (Friends of Hastain Trial v. Coldwater Development LLC (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1037; Samples v. Brown (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 787, 811; Allen v. Smith, at p. 1284.) “ ‘An order awarding costs falls with a reversal of the judgment [or order] on which it is based.’ ” (Allen v. Smith, at p. 1284.) After the reversal, the matter of costs is “ ‘set at large.’ ” (Ibid.)

2 DISPOSITION The order is reversed. Plaintiffs shall recover costs in this appeal.

O’ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

HUFFMAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus