Ducoing Management, Inc. v. Superior Court of Orange County
234 Cal. App. 4th 306
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Brent and Ami Ducoing formed two corporations: Ducoing Enterprises, Inc. (DEI) and Ducoing Management, Inc. (petitioner); both did business as Perfection Painting.
- A payroll manager embezzled funds via "ghost" employees; plaintiffs sued their insurance broker (real parties) for failing to procure employee dishonesty coverage.
- At trial the court granted nonsuit as to both plaintiffs and entered judgment for defendants plus an unapportioned costs award of $50,089 against both plaintiffs.
- On appeal this court affirmed the nonsuit as to petitioner but reversed "in all other respects," reinstating DEI’s claims and remanding for retrial; the disposition also denied costs on appeal.
- After remand defendants sought to execute the original joint costs award against petitioner alone; petitioner moved to quash and to deem the cost portion unenforceable, which the trial court denied.
- This writ proceeding challenges the trial court’s enforcement of the joint cost award against petitioner after the appellate reversal "in all other respects." The appellate court granted relief and vacated the enforcement orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate disposition reversing the judgment "in all other respects" left the original joint trial cost award intact | Ducoing Management: reversal of DEI’s nonsuit reinstates DEI’s entire case, so costs against petitioner cannot stand | Real parties: affirmance as to petitioner supports enforcement of the cost award against petitioner | Reversal "in all other respects" vacated the unapportioned cost award as to both plaintiffs; trial court must not enforce the joint costs against petitioner |
| Whether a reversing disposition automatically vacates cost awards | Petitioner: reversing judgment rescinds attendant cost award absent express save of costs | Real parties: defendants claim right to recover trial costs from petitioner as prevailing party on that part affirmed | Court: reversal ordinarily vacates costs; the phrase "in all other respects" unqualifiedly included the cost award, so it was reversed |
| Whether trial court could enforce joint costs without apportionment after remand | Petitioner: enforcing full joint costs would be unfair because DEI’s claims remain and may prevail at retrial | Real parties: analogized to other cases where costs against dismissed plaintiffs were collectible | Court: apportionment and trial-court discretion required; allowing collection risks saddling petitioner with costs that may ultimately be attributable to DEI’s continuing claim |
| Whether extraordinary writ relief was appropriate to block enforcement before retrial | Petitioner: immediate relief needed to prevent coercive collection (liens, debtor exam) | Real parties: argued trial court decision followed appellate ruling and collection should proceed | Court: peremptory writ in first instance warranted; petitioner had no adequate legal remedy and enforcement would irreparably harm petitioner |
Key Cases Cited
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., 25 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 2001) (appellate dispositions control remand and limit trial-court actions)
- Eldridge v. Burns, 136 Cal.App.3d 907 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (disposition construed with opinion as a whole)
- Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 210 Cal.App.4th 851 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (dispositional language read in context of opinion)
- Allen v. Smith, 94 Cal.App.4th 1270 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (reversal vacates cost award absent express preservation)
- Acosta v. SI Corp., 129 Cal.App.4th 1370 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (apportionment unnecessary where defendant prevailed entirely against joint plaintiffs)
- Anderson v. Pacific Bell, 204 Cal.App.3d 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (distinguishable rule on recovering costs from dismissed plaintiffs)
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., 36 Cal.3d 171 (Cal. 1984) (Palma procedure and accelerated writ relief)