Quiles v. Parent
10 Cal. App. 5th 130
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Amanda Quiles won a jury verdict for FLSA wrongful termination and related damages; postjudgment the trial court awarded Quiles $689,310.04 in attorney fees and $50,591.69 in costs, resulting in an amended judgment of $948,401.73.
- Defendant Arthur Parent appealed only the postjudgment attorney-fee and cost awards and paid/satisfied the underlying damages portion before seeking a stay.
- Parent sought a stay of enforcement pending appeal without posting the usual bond required for money judgments; the trial court denied the stay and permitted enforcement steps (writs, levies, debtor exams).
- Parent petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of supersedeas, arguing that the remaining postjudgment awards were "costs" under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021 et seq. and therefore automatically stayed under § 917.1(d) without an undertaking.
- The Court considered whether attorney fees and the awarded costs qualify as "costs awarded under Chapter 6 (commencing with § 1021) of Title 14," and whether Ziello permits converting a money judgment into a costs-only judgment by satisfying damages and appealing only fees/costs.
Issues
| Issue | Quiles' Argument | Parent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postjudgment attorney fees and costs awarded under the FLSA are "costs" for purposes of the § 917.1(d) automatic stay | Fees/costs exceed items listed in § 1033.5 and include items not recoverable under state-cost rules; federal statute/case law governs and thus may place them outside § 1021–1038 | FLSA-authorized attorney fees and related litigation expenses are still "costs" under § 1021–1038 (including § 1033.5), so § 917.1(d) applies | The court held the fees and costs qualify as costs under Chapter 6 and are covered by § 917.1(d) |
| Whether a judgment debtor may obtain an automatic stay by satisfying the damages portion and appealing only the fees/costs | Quiles: allowing this would allow debtors to evade bonding and frustrate enforcement; trial court should have discretion under § 917.9 to require a bond | Parent: Ziello permits this maneuver; once damages satisfied and appeal limited to costs, the remaining award is a costs-only judgment and is automatically stayed without bond | The court followed Ziello: satisfaction of damages + appeal limited to fees/costs allows application of § 917.1(d) automatic stay |
| Whether the pre-1993 Bank of San Pedro routine/nonroutine test controls | Quiles: Bank of San Pedro’s analysis (routine vs nonroutine costs) and its concern about § 998 costs should limit § 917.1(d) application | Parent: 1993 statutory amendments superseded the routine/nonroutine test; § 917.1(d) now plainly exempts costs under §§ 1021–1038 | The court concluded the 1993 amendments simplify analysis and § 917.1(d) governs; Bank of San Pedro remains limited to its statutory category (e.g., § 998) |
| Whether the trial court should have exercised its § 917.9 discretion to require an undertaking | Quiles: trial court could and should have imposed a discretionary bond given large fee award and risk of dissipation | Parent: did not seek § 917.9 relief below; having satisfied damages and appealed only costs, Parent is entitled to automatic stay | The appellate court did not reach § 917.9 merits; it noted § 917.9 preserves trial-court discretion but found no showing below that made discretionary bond appropriate and issued writ staying enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of San Pedro v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 1992) (distinguishes expert-fee/§ 998 awards as nonroutine costs requiring bond)
- Ziello v. Superior Court, 75 Cal.App.4th 651 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (appellant who satisfies damages and appeals only costs may obtain costs-only automatic stay)
- Chapala Management Corp. v. Stanton, 186 Cal.App.4th 1532 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (statutory attorney-fee awards treated as costs for stay purposes)
- Pecsok v. Black, 7 Cal.App.4th 456 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (advocated bright-line rule treating § 1033.5-authorized items uniformly as costs)
- Dowling v. Zimmerman, 85 Cal.App.4th 1400 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (anti-SLAPP statutory fees not routine for stay purposes)
- Nielsen v. Stumbos, 226 Cal.App.3d 301 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (contractual attorney fees can be costs for stay analysis)