Nguyen – Conservatorship

Respondents now seek an award of attorneys’ fees on the ground they were the prevailing party in these proceedings.

Fees and costs on Requests for Elder of Dependent Adult Restraining Order Allowing Contact (EA-300) are governed by Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.03(t), which reads in full: “The prevailing party in an action brought under this section may be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees, if any.” (Emphasis added.) A “prevailing party” includes “the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1032.)

As set forth in section 15657.03(t), costs and fees “may” be awarded to a prevailing party. “The use of the word ‘may’ denotes a discretionary choice.” (Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1561.) Given the facts of this case, the court exercises its discretion to deny an award of costs or fees.

The court will give notice.

10 Nguyen – Motion to Strike Conservatorship 30-2023-01345985 Proposed conservator and objector Ngoc Hong Nguyen’s Motion to Strike or Disregard Respondent’s Unauthorized Post-Reply Filings (ROA 483) is DENIED as moot.

By her motion, Ngoc Hong Nguyen seeks to strike Danh Hong’s Opposition to Ngoc Hong Nguyen’s Reply to Opposition (ROA 479) and Declaration of Danh Hong in Support of Opposition to Ngoc Hon Nguyen’s Reply (ROA 478). The documents were filed in connection with Ngoc Hong Nguyen’s Motion for Independent Geriatric Evaluation (ROA 419). The motion was heard and decided on April 29,

2026 (ROA 492). The court did not consider either document in connection with its ruling on the motion. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as moot.

Danh Hong is directed to give notice.