| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs
for expenses that are “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation” and are “reasonable in amount.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2)- (4).)
Here, Defendants claim costs in the amount of $462.30.
Plaintiffs do not challenge this amount.
Therefore, the court awards costs in the amount of $462.30.
Agranovich Defendants shall give notice of this ruling
Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs 6 30-2022-01291447 Respondent California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Regio’s Motion to Strike Baldwin & Sons, Inc. vs. or Tax Costs is GRANTED. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Pending Motion Diego Region Respondent California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region moves to strike the memorandum of costs filed by Petitioners Baldwin & Sons, Inc.; Sunranch Capital Partners, LLC; Sunrise Pacific Construction, Inc.; SRC-PH Investments, LLC; Baldwin & Sons, LLC; Shawn M. Baldwin; Randall G. Bone; and Jose Capati.
Standard to Seek Costs – Standard to Strike and/or Tax Costs
Generally, the “prevailing party” is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs of suit in any action or proceeding. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606.)
The “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 Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)
In addition, “[i]f any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the ‘prevailing party’ shall be as
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed, may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)
In this case, Petitioners received partial writ relief, so the Court has discretion to determine the prevailing party in this matter. (See Lafayette Bollinger Development LLC v. Town of Moraga (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 752, 786 [“By obtaining partial writ relief, the Bruzzones ‘recover[ed] other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified,’ meaning the second sentence of Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (a)(4), applies.”].)
As the Court of Appeals has explained:
In these situations, “the trial court in its discretion determines the prevailing party, comparing the relief sought with that obtained, along with the parties' litigation objectives as disclosed by their pleadings, briefs, and other such sources.” Thus, the trial court determines whether the party succeeded at a practical level by realizing its litigation objectives and the action yielded the primary relief sought in the case.
(Friends of Spring Street v. Nevada City (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1104, citations omitted, quoting On-Line Power, Inc. v. Mazur (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1087.)
“If neither party achieves a complete victory on all the contract claims, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine which party prevailed on the contract or whether, on balance, neither party prevailed sufficiently to justify an award of attorney fees.” (Scott Co. of California v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1109.)
The first step of this analysis addresses the relief sought by Petitioners when they filed the Petition for Writ of Mandate.
The Petition requested a writ to set aside the Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R9-2022- 0094 (ACLO). (See ROA #2.) In addition, in their opening brief in support of the petition, Petitioners
sought an order setting aside the ACLO in its entirety. (See ROA #106.)
The second step of this analysis identifies the relief actually obtained through the court and the third step addresses both parties’ litigation objectives, which involves a review of their pleadings, briefs and other sources.
The court is familiar with this litigation and has reviewed the case files.
Petitioners did not achieve their goal of setting aside the ACLO in its entirety. While the court found that Respondent’s findings of the volume discharge calculations were not supported by substantial evidence, the court did not find that Respondent lacked authority to impose a penalty based on the quantity of stormwater discharged. Further, Petitioners unsuccessfully advanced numerous challenges, both substantive and procedural, to the ACLO.
The court finds that neither Petitioners nor Respondent are prevailing parties for purposes of Section 1032(a)(4).
Therefore, neither party is entitled to an award of costs and the court will grant the motion to strike costs.
Respondent shall give notice of this ruling.
Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary 7 30-2025-01489744 Adjudication
Defendant Linda Isle Community Association’s Baldoni vs. Hill Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is taken OFF CALENDAR pursuant to Defendant Linda Isle Community Association’s Notice of Withdrawal and Taking Off-Calendar of the Motin for Summary Judgment and the Hearing Scheduled for May 11, 2026 (ROA #127), filed April 10, 2026.
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel 30-2023-01348993 8 Counsel Edwin B. Brown’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Aronas Corporation is DENIED without prejudice.