Trial Courts Cannot Determine “Prevailing Party” Discretionarily, If Categorical Fit Exists.
Site Management Services, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless LLC, Case No. D057106 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished) is a doozy of a case, involving colocation agreements between cellular tower and related service companies.
“A very orange Bryan Jordan makes a call on his cell phone next to an empty phone booth, Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, California.” Carol M. Highsmith Collection, Library of Congress.
It resulted in a 121 page opinion in which a sizable judgment in favor of Site Management Solutions was reversed, with the decision containing interesting discussions about the elevated clear and convincing standard applicable to waiver/ratification of fraud theories at the lower court level. On a routine costs issue, the appellate court rejected the conclusion that the lower court had “discretion” to determine prevailing party status with respect to the Cingular entities when they fell within one of the four mandatory costs “prevailing party” categories under CCP § 1032(a)(4). For those of you who want to engage in some very interesting reading, take a perusal of this one.
BLOG OBSERVATION—Co-contributor Mike represented Solutions at early stages in this litigation that went through several judges and at least one provisional director. He will only say that every law and motion proceeding was a definite free-for-all, both for spectators and court participants.
Comments