Elmi v. Related Management Co., L.P.

Filed 1/8/25; Certified for Publication 2/6/25 (order attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CAESAR ELMI,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G062788

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01105181)

RELATED MANAGEMENT OPINION COMPANY, L.P.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Linda S. Marks, Judge. Reversed. Litigation Advocacy Group, Glenn A. Murphy; and Brendan Patrick Maloney for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Goodkin Law Group, Daniel L. Goodkin, and Michael A. Shakouri for Defendant and Respondent. * * * After plaintiff Caesar Elmi rejected a settlement offer made by defendant Related Management Company, L.P. (Related) pursuant to Code of 1 Civil Procedure section 998, the case was resolved for less than the amount Related offered. Consequently, in accordance with section 998, subdivision (c)(1), Elmi’s award of prejudgment costs and attorney fees were limited to those incurred before Related’s offer. On appeal, we affirmed the trial court’s determination that Related’s offer was worth more than the case resolved for, and concluded the court did not err in limiting Elmi’s costs and fees. (Elmi v. Related Management Company, L.P., (Sept. 25, 2023, G061379) [nonpub. opn.].) Following entry of the judgment, Elmi filed a second motion, seeking an award of $10,861 in additional fees and $212.91 in additional costs, which he incurred in efforts to enforce the judgment. Although Related filed no opposition to the motion, the court denied it, reasoning that “[p]laintiff is not entitled to any fees or costs after April 28, 2021, when [d]efendant served it’s 998 offer.” Elmi appeals that denial, arguing the court erred because section 998 applies only to prejudgment costs and fees. We agree and therefore reverse. Postjudgment costs incurred in connection with efforts to enforce the judgment are not governed by section 998. Related’s arguments on the