Losing Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Denied Private Attorney General Fee Request In Opinion With Several Cross-Over Issues.
Direct Action Everywhere SF Bay Area etc. v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, Case No. A162702 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 1, 2023) (unpublished) is an opinion with many cross-over issues as identified in our main title to this post.
In this one, plaintiff sued defendant for alleged false advertising and unfair competition violations, with defendant cross-complaining against plaintiff, as a cross-defendant, for trespass, conversion, and unfair competition. Defendant won on both suits after an 8-day bench trial. The lower court also determined that defendant was the prevailing party, awarding defendant/cross-complainant routine costs of $68,734.37 minus $4,950 in mediator expenses and $72,848.25 in attorney’s fees under CCP § 1021.9 (the trespass fee-shifting statute). The lower court denied plaintiff’s request for $1,541,000 in private attorney general fees under CCP § 1021.5.
On appeal, the costs and fee rulings were all affirmed. Plaintiff argued that nominal damages will not support a trespass fees award (citing treatises to that effect), but the appellate court disagreed: “section 1021.9 does not delineate between the type of damages awarded in a trespass action, but rather states that a party ‘shall be’ entitled to its fees and costs when it prevails in an action for damages to its personal or real property resulting from trespass.” In this case, the lower court determined that plaintiff trespassed six times resulting in the loss of two turkeys such that tangible damages did occur, awarding $8.00 in damages and a permanent injunction. That sufficed for 1021.9 purposes: cross-complainant suffered tangible harm even though cross-complainant failed to adduce proof of the trespass loss. Plaintiff argued fees were unwarranted because this could have been brought as a small claims or a limited case (citing Chavez, our Leading Case #13), but that argument failed because a case praying for a permanent injunction must be brought as an unlimited matter. Plaintiff ended by contending that cross-complainant did not beat its CCP § 998 offer, but that lacked merit because cross-complainant’s pre-offer costs well exceeded the offer on the cross-complaint and plaintiff’s 998 offer only offered a temporal permanent injunction versus the unlimited permanent injunction obtained by cross-complainant.
With respect to plaintiff’s 1021.5 request, that was dispatched because plaintiff was not successful and was no catalyst for any changes.
On the routine costs side, the lower court’s rulings were correct, reminding litigants and practitioners that court reporter costs are recoverable (even if the transcript costs are not) and deposition costs for witnesses not testifying at trial are allowable in the lower court’s discretion.
Comments