Appealability/Undertaking: Appellate Court Grants Supersedeas For Fees Only Award, But Dismisses Subsequent Appeal When Supersedeas Grant Did Not Rule On Costs to Petitioner

 

     This next case, Soni v. CH&I Technologies, Inc., Case No. B240173 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 30, 2013) (unpublished), enters into the arcane fray of fees only awards and supersedeas grants. So, here we go.

     After observing that this was the third appeal between the parties (hint! hint!), the background for all this was attorney being awarded a prior judgment for unpaid fees of $77,691.43 but also obtaining a Civil Code section 1717 prevailing party fee recovery of $204,465.07 against CHI. CHI satisfied the base judgment, but then filed a supersedeas writ to stay post-judgment collection efforts on the fees only award under Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1(d). Some decisions hold that execution is automatically stayed pending appeal due to the operation of this statute. (See Chapala Management Corp. v. Stanton, 186 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1546 (2010) [discussed in our Aug. 1, 2010 post].) Supersedeas was granted, but no costs were awarded to CHI. Subsequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s fee/costs award to attorney and against CHI, awarding costs to Soni on that appeal.

     CHI then appealed, rearguing the supersedeas points (which it had won) but also claiming it should have been awarded costs.

     The appellate court found the appeal to be moot given what had occurred in the prior supersedeas proceeding, with nothing requiring an apportionment of costs or even an award of costs to the prevailing petitioner in a summary disposition context. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.112, 8.116.) Because costs were not awarded to CHI in the supersedeas proceeding and were awarded to attorney in the subsequent appeal, there was nothing else to resolve.

     BLOG UNDERVIEW--The fees only undertaking issue is not as clean as one might think. See the reasoning of the Fourth District, Division 3 in Behniwal v. Mix, also discussed in our August 1, 2010 post on Chapala Management, which seems to go the other way on this issue.