Krikorian Premiere Theatres, LLC v. Westminster Central, LLC
193 Cal. App. 4th 1075
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Westminster appealed a postremand costs order after this court reversed the original judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The lease’s sole remedy limited Krikorian’s recovery to architectural fees; Westminster pursued costs on appeal totaling about $2.6 million.
- On remand, the trial court partially taxed Westminster’s costs, including a disputed $944,263 item, which Krikorian challenged.
- Separately, Krikorian sought $12,267.22 in architectural fees; Westminster paid, rendering a new trial unnecessary.
- The central issue published concerns whether the postremand costs order is appealable, given the remand status and finality concerns.
- The court ultimately holds the costs order is appealable and modifies the award to grant Westminster the $944,263 item, with other aspects affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the postremand costs order appealable? | Krikorian | Westminster | Yes; the order is appealable as an after-judgment and/or collateral-order appeal. |
| Does the collateral order doctrine validate appeal of the costs order? | Krikorian | Westminster | Yes; the collateral-order doctrine supports appeal of an ancillary cost order that is final and separable from merits. |
| Was the $944,263 cost item properly taxed against Westminster? | Krikorian | Westminster | Yes for Westminster; the trial court’s denial of that item was error and the item should be awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monson v. Fischer, 219 Cal. 290 (Cal. 1933) (costs on appeal are appealable as after-judgment orders)
- Markart v. Zeimer, 74 Cal.App. 152 (Cal. App. 1925) (costs on appeal are appealable as after final judgment; immediate enforcement)
- In re Kling, 48 Cal.App. 739 (Cal. App. 1920) (initial position that such orders were not appealable)
- Barnes v. Litton Systems, Inc., 28 Cal.App.4th 681 (Cal. App. 1994) (collateral-order approach not adopted for costs tax; analysis shifted)
- Sjoberg v. Hastorf, 33 Cal.2d 116 (Cal. 1948) (collateral order doctrine; finality in collateral proceedings)
- In re Marriage of Skelley, 18 Cal.3d 365 (Cal. 1976) (temporary support orders and collateral appeal rights; ties to 904.1 wording)
- Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries, 6 Cal.4th 644 (Cal. 1993) (standard for appealability of postjudgment orders under 904.1)
- City and County of San Francisco v. Shers, 38 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. App. 1995) (statutory interpretation of 904.1 mechanics; subdivision structure)