Opinion
D057331
11-04-2011
HAWTHORNE MACHINERY COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THEO H. DAVIES & CO., LTD. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. 37-2008-00083222-CU-BC-CTL)
APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard E. L. Strauss, Judge. Affirmed.
In a business dispute, plaintiff and respondent Hawthorne Machinery Company (Hawthorne) sued defendants and appellants Theo H. Davies & Co., Ltd. (Davies), and obtained a declaratory relief judgment in favor of Hawthorne. Davies appealed, and this court affirmed the judgment in full, concluding: "Hawthorne remains the prevailing party on all accounts." (Hawthorne v. Davies (Jan. 24, 2011, D056415) [nonpub. opn.]; our prior opinion.) This is a follow-up appeal by Davies of an attorney fees and costs order after judgment, in favor of Hawthorne as prevailing party (issued April 2, 2010). Davies was ordered to pay contractual attorney fees in the amount of $147,121.25, and costs in the amount of $5,722.63. This timely appeal followed.
I
PRIOR OPINION AND CURRENT ISSUES PRESENTED
While the current appeal of the postjudgment order on attorney fees was pending, this court rejected a stipulation by the parties to consolidate it with the pending prior appeal, because this matter was not briefed or ready. Davies requested that this court accept the prior briefing as sufficient, but after communication with the clerk's office, the matter was fully briefed, with completion occurring before our opinion was filed in January 2011. Thereafter, the remittitur was issued in the prior appeal on March 28, 2011.
Accordingly, the briefs on appeal could not have recognized that the underlying declaratory relief judgment would be affirmed in full, which it was. Davies does not challenge the specific amount of attorney fees and costs, but instead challenges Hawthorne's entitlement to an award. Davies continues to discuss issues concerning any entitlement to pre-offer or postoffer costs under Code of Civil Procedure sections 998 and 1032. (All further statutory references are to this code unless noted.)
II
STANDARDS AND APPLICATION
The parties agree that under City of Long Beach v. Stevedoring Services of America (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 672, 678, de novo review is proper for statutory cost determinations in cases like this, in which only issues of law are presented on undisputed facts. At least until the remittitur issued in March 2011, Davies had some basis to challenge this attorney fee order. (§ 904.1, subd. (a)(2).)
All issues of entitlement to an award of attorney fees and costs were fully addressed and resolved in our prior opinion, and the amount is not challenged in this appeal. It is now clear as a matter of law that Hawthorne is entitled to its fees and costs as ordered by the trial court, and there are no remaining issues about pre-offer or postoffer costs.
DISPOSITION
The order awarding attorney fees and costs is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to Hawthorne.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.