Lower Court’s Determination That No Party Prevailed For Routine Cost Purpose Was Reversed With Directions To Award Costs To Dismissed Defendant.
In Shapell SoCal Rental Properties, LLC v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., Case No. G063663 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 17, 2025) (unpublished), tenant and landlord were involved in an Orange County unlawful detainer action and a Los Angeles County breach of lease action. After a prior OC appeal resulted in the vacating of a default and a default judgment for possession in the UD action, tenant answered the OC action. Earlier, while the earlier appeal was pending, tenant vacated the premises because the lower court denied a stay of execution request relating to the judgment for possession. In the Los Angeles action, tenant served a CCP § 998 offer on landlord, an offer which was accepted, resulting in entry of a judgment for the § 998 offer amount plus costs. Landlord unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment in the UD action. At an OSC re dismissal hearing in the UD action, the lower court dismissed the action without prejudice. Tenant filed a costs memo for $6,348, landlord filed a costs memo for $8,799.37, and both sides filed motions to tax costs. The lower court found no side prevailed, exercising its discretion to not award costs to anyone.
The 4/3 DCA, in an opinion authored by Acting Presiding Justice Sanchez, affirmed the denial of costs to landlord but reversed the denial of costs to tenant—directing that it be awarded $6,348. The basis of the reversal was CCP § 1032(a)(4), which makes it mandatory to award costs for a dismissal entered in favor of defendant—a legal question reviewed de novo. This mandatory nature of the award was no different in UD actions (Mitchell Land & Improvement Co. v. Ristorante Ferrantelli, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 479, 483 (2007)), with plaintiff’s clever arguments to preempt the statute found unavailing on appeal.
Comments