No Costs Memorandum Required To Be Filed Because Fees/Costs Awarded Made Before Notices Of Dismissal/Entry Of Judgment Served By Plaintiff, Who Had Notice Of The Requests.
Plaintiff, a hair stylist at Chaddick’s beauty salon, was terminated and filed an anti-harassment petition against Ms. Chaddick, which action was dismissed after the trial court declined to issue a TRO and continued the trial. Chaddick filed a fee motion about a month after the dismissal for $1,000 in fees and a subsequent declaration for $435 in costs. The trial court found that Chaddick had prevailed, overruling plaintiff’s objections that there was no proper notice in moving papers for costs or no filed costs memorandum. Plaintiff provided notices of dismissal and entry of judgment well after the fee/costs order was issued.
The 2/6 DCA affirmed in Tietz v. Chaddick, Case No. B303694 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 20, 2020) (unpublished), a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Yegan.
The $1,000 fee award was correct because Ms. Chaddick was the prevailing party given the dismissal of the anti-harassment action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6(s).) The failure to file a costs memorandum was no obstacle under the circumstances, given that plaintiff filed the notices after the fee/costs award was made and that plaintiff also knew about/contested the costs request. Besides, CRC 3.1170’s requirement of a costs memorandum could not trump CCP § 1032 allowing recovery of costs as a matter of right where fees/costs are awarded before the dismissal is served or before the entry of judgment is filed/served.
BLOG QUOTE—Justice Yegan is an appellate jurist who shows many literary flourishes in his opinions. In this one he explains the origins of the phrase “too clever by half.” It was coined in George J. Whyte-Melville’s 1985 book, “The Interpreters,” and means “too smart for one’s own good,” a discussion about the derivation of the phrase he found in the recent bankruptcy decision in In re Jet ICU Leasing, 614 B.R. 385, 388 n. 3 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2020).
Comments