Harris v. University Village Thousand Oaks CCRC CA2/6
B311972
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2022Background:
- Plaintiffs (residents) signed residence agreements with UVTO containing arbitration clauses and a separate contractual fee-shifting provision for actions to enforce the agreement.
- Plaintiffs sued UVTO on multiple tort and statutory claims; the trial court compelled arbitration and confirmed an arbitration award in UVTO’s favor.
- On prior appeal (Harris 1), this Court held the arbitration clauses void, reversed the confirmation, remanded for trial, and awarded plaintiffs appellate costs.
- On remand plaintiffs moved in the trial court for: (1) appellate costs and fees, and (2) costs and attorney’s fees related to opposing/defending arbitration and the arbitration itself. The trial court awarded appellate costs but denied the fee/cost requests without prejudice to renew after final adjudication.
- Plaintiffs appealed the denial. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the interlocutory denial without prejudice was not an appealable order and respondents recover costs on appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the trial court’s denial without prejudice of costs and attorney’s fees appealable under CCP §904.1(a)(2) as an order made after judgment? | The prior appellate ruling (Harris 1) created an appealable judgment or otherwise permits immediate appeal of denial. | Harris 1 reversed the prior judgment, so no appealable final judgment exists; order is interlocutory. | Denial without prejudice is not appealable under §904.1(a)(2). |
| Is the order appealable as a special order after final judgment under CCP §1294(e) in an arbitration case? | Harris 1 resolved the arbitration petition and is final, so §1294(e) applies. | Harris 1 resulted in remand for trial and did not constitute a final judgment terminating the action; §1294(e) does not apply. | §1294(e) does not authorize the appeal; the matter is not a final arbitration judgment. |
| Can plaintiffs appeal denial of attorney’s fees claimed as fees "on appeal" (appellate fees) now? | An award or denial of appellate-related fees is separable and immediately appealable. | Awards of appellate costs/fees are conceptually separate; here any contractual fee award would originate in the trial court post-final adjudication, not from the appellate mandate. | Denial of contractual appellate fees is not immediately appealable; such fees must be pursued in the trial court after final resolution. |
| Does the collateral-order doctrine permit immediate appeal of the denial? | The collateral-order doctrine allows interlocutory appeals of orders directing payment or performance, so it should apply. | The order denying fees without prejudice does not direct payment and is not collateral to the main action. | Collateral-order doctrine does not apply; denial without prejudice is not an appealable collateral order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Marralle, 8 Cal.4th 121 (appealability is statutory; one final judgment rule)
- Harris v. University Village Thousand Oaks CCRC LLC, 49 Cal.App.5th 847 (prior appellate decision reversing arbitration award and remanding)
- Barnes v. Litton Sys., Inc., 28 Cal.App.4th 681 (order taxing appellate costs after reversal not appealable while case awaiting trial)
- Krikorian Premiere Theatres, LLC v. Westminster Central, LLC, 193 Cal.App.4th 1075 (contrasting view that some orders taxing appellate costs may be appealable)
- Fleur du Lac Estates Assn. v. Mansouri, 205 Cal.App.4th 249 (reversal of arbitration order remanding for trial is not final for §1294(e))
- Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc., 206 Cal.App.4th 515 (petitions to compel arbitration filed in same action are not independent final proceedings)
- DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com, 2 Cal.5th 968 (Supreme Court on prevailing-party concept where interim victory does not resolve merits)
- Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com, 222 Cal.App.4th 1010 (discussion of appealability split and collateral-order alternative)
- Sanchez v. Westlake Servs., LLC, 73 Cal.App.5th 1100 (order denying attorney’s fees is not a collateral order when it does not direct payment)