Appealability, Private Attorney General: Where Trial Judge Only Struck Private Attorney General Entitlement Language Inserted In A Proposed Judgment, But Did Not Preclude A Further Fee Motion, Appeal Of The “Striking” Action Was Premature

There Was No Ruling To Be Appealed From.

            In Kottler v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B278276 (2d Dist., Div. 1 February 4, 2019) (unpublished), next door neighbors successfully obtained mandamus over a zoning adjustment made in favor of another neighbor. Petitioners submitted a proposed judgment indicating that they were entitled to fees under the private attorney general statute, but the lower court had that language stricken from the judgment because the issue had not been teed up yet. However, nothing prevented petitioners from bringing a fee motion, with the parties stipulating that petitioners could seek fees later. Petitioners obviously thought the “strike out” was a denial of the fee entitlement request, but the appellate court said “no”—the trial judge had not ruled yet and did not preclude a future fee motion, such that there was nothing to be appealed from at this stage.