Filed 6/14/22 Mateen-Bradford v. City of Compton 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
| KAREEMAH MATEEN-BRADFORD,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CITY OF COMPTON,
Defendant and Appellant,
WESIERSKI & ZUREK, Real Party in Interest and Appellant
| B307499
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TC026769)
|
APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Maurice A. Leiter, Judge. Reversed.
Gladius Law, Alyssa K. Schabloski, and The Ehrlich Law Firm, Jeffery I. Ehrilich, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Office of the City Attorney City of Compton, Anita O. Aviles, Klapach & Klapach, Joseph S. Klapach, Ring Bender, Norman A. Dupont, for Defendant, Respondent and Cross-Appellant.
Wesierski & Zurek, Frank D’Oro, David M. Ferrante-Alan, Lynne Rasmussen, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
______________________
A. Background
On July 13, 2020, the trial court entered a postjugment order awarding attorney fees and costs to plaintiff Kareemah Mateen-Bradford, as prevailing party against defendant City of Compton (the City) but denying a separate request for fees and costs made by real party Wesierski & Zurek. All three parties appealed from the postjudgment order.
Shortly after Wesierski & Zurek filed its opening brief, we filed an unpublished opinion in the City’s separate appeal from the underlying judgment in which we reversed the judgment in favor of plaintiff. (Bradford v. City of Compton (Oct. 28, 2021, B300491) [nonpub. opn.].) Plaintiff then filed her opening brief conceding that once our unpublished opinion reversing the judgment became final, it would moot the appeals from the attorney fees award. In response, the City filed a motion for summary reversal of the fee award and dismissal of the appeals, but it withdrew the motion after plaintiff filed her petition for review in the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court denied review (Bradford v. City of Compton (Jan. 26, 2022, S272133)), the City renewed its motion, and plaintiff filed a nonopposition. We then issued orders concerning further briefing and oral argument on the appeals, and Wesierski & Zurek filed a nonopposition to the City’s motion. Although invited to do so, no party requested oral argument. We therefore deemed the matter submitted.
B. Analysis
We have reviewed the parties’ various submissions and agree with the City that in light of our earlier opinion reversing the judgment on which the attorney fees award was based, the orders awarding attorney fees to plaintiff and denying them to Wesierski & Zurek should also be reversed. (See Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 230, 263–264; see also Melancon v. Walt Disney Productions (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 213, 214–215.) We therefore reverse the orders on the attorney fees motions.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment orders awarding attorney fees and costs to plaintiff and denying them to Wesierski & Zurek are reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. All parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM, J.
We concur:
BAKER, Acting P. J.
MOOR, J.
