Legally Erroneous to Deny Fee Request on Untimeliness Ground.
In Golden Hill Neighborhood Assn., Inc. v. City of San Diego, Case No. D062203 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 25, 2013) (unpublished), a trial court entered a new judgment following issuance of an earlier appellate remittitur. The lower court then denied the Association’s prevailing party fees request on the ground that it failed to file its fee motion 40 days after issuance of the remittitur pursuant to California Rule of Court, rule 3.1702(c)(1).
On review, wrong CRC provision used to determine timeliness of fee motion filing, said the appellate court.
Given that the lower court entered a new judgment after remittitur issuance, the correct rule was CRC, rule 3.1702(b)(1) which allowed for 60 days, a period within which the fee motion indeed was filed. Remanded to consider the fee motion because it was timely in nature.