legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Saavedra v. City of Glendale CA2/5

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
Saavedra v. City of Glendale CA2/5
By
01:16:2019

Filed 12/27/18 Saavedra v. City of Glendale CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

JUAN SAAVEDRA et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

CITY OF GLENDALE,

Defendant and Appellant.

B283731

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No.

BC539160)

APPEAL from postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Reversed.

Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Michael G. Colantuono, David J. Ruderman, Jon R. di Cristina; Michael J. Garcia and Christine A. Godinez, for Defendant and Appellant.

Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers, D. William Heine and Daniel E. Curry, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

__________________________

Defendant and appellant City of Glendale appeals from a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to petitioners and respondents Juan Saavedra and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18, AFL-CIO (collectively the Union). This appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment in Saavedra v. City of Glendale (Dec. 27, 2018, B281991 [nonpub. opn.]) for further proceedings. “With the judgment vacated, incidental matters, proceedings, or claims based on the judgment are likewise nullified.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 869, p. 929.) An award of costs, including attorney fees authorized by statute or contract, necessarily falls with the judgment. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1027.) The disposition reversing the judgment also reversed the postjudgment order governing attorney fees. Therefore, the City’s appeal from the postjudgment order must be reversed. (See Evans v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1378, 1388 [reversing the judgment operated to vacate the award of costs incident to the judgment, so plaintiff’s appeal of order denying motion to tax costs dismissed as moot].)

DISPOSITION

The postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to the Union is reversed. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

MOOR, Acting P.J.

We concur:

KIM, J.

SEIGLE, J.*


* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.





Description Defendant and appellant City of Glendale appeals from a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to petitioners and respondents Juan Saavedra and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18, AFL-CIO (collectively the Union). This appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment in Saavedra v. City of Glendale (Dec. 27, 2018, B281991 [nonpub. opn.]) for further proceedings. “With the judgment vacated, incidental matters, proceedings, or claims based on the judgment are likewise nullified.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 869, p. 929.) An award of costs, including attorney fees authorized by statute or contract, necessarily falls with the judgment. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1027.) The disposition reversing the judgment also reversed the postjudgment order governing attorney fees. Therefore, the City’s appeal from the postjudgment order must be reversed. (See Evans v. Southern Pacific Transportation
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 28 views. Averaging 28 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale