Simi-Moorpark Freeway Properties v.
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
SIMI-MOORPARK FREEWAY PROPERTIES, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CYPRESS LAND COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B188023 ( Super. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William F. Highberger, Judge. Affirmed.
Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan, Mark A. Neubauer and Carla A. Veltman for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Rutter Hobbs & Davidoff, Fred A. Fenster and Steven E. Formaker for Defendants and Respondents.
______________________________
In two real estate transactions governed by different purchase agreements, plaintiffs sold defendants undeveloped lots subject to special city taxes. Defendants agreed to be responsible for the taxes and, in turn, were to receive a credit in escrow. Escrow closed in both transactions.
Plaintiffs filed this action, contending that the city's determination of the taxes on the first sale, and thus the escrow credit, was too high, such that defendants owe them an additional sum. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding that the parties had received exactly what they had bargained for under the purchase agreements. Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment.
Defendants then moved for attorney fees pursuant to an attorney fee provision in the agreements. Defendants requested $449,627 in fees. The trial court awarded $359,703. In addition, defendants filed a memorandum of costs. Plaintiffs moved to tax costs, which was denied. Plaintiffs appealed those rulings as well.
In a separate appeal (B186385), we filed an opinion today, affirming the granting of defendants' summary judgment motion. In this opinion, we affirm the award of attorney fees and costs because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making those awards.
I
BACKGROUND
The following facts and reasonable inferences are taken from the parties' undisputed evidence on the cross-motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication. (See Raghavan v. Boeing Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1125.)
Pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Act) (Gov. Code, § 53311 et seq.), the City of Moorpark created â€
