Treybig v. Meza

Filed 11/20/25 APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

GLORIA C. TREYBIG, et al., 2024-01416924

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 2023-01366882)

v. OPINION

ARACELI MEZA, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Alma Hernandez, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Melinda M. Luthin for Defendants and Appellants Araceli Meza, Alma Meza, Jose Ramirez, and Jacqueline Ramirez. Steven Silverstein for Plaintiffs and Respondents.1 * * * Defendants and appellants Araceli Meza, Alma Meza, Jose Ramirez, and Jacqueline Ramirez (collectively Meza and Ramirez) appeal from an order granting a motion to strike costs filed by plaintiffs and respondents Gloria C. Treybig and Lawrence Treybig (Treybigs). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

1 Respondents did not file a brief. Although we have discretion to decide the appeal on the record, appellant’s opening brief, and oral argument of appellant, we decline to exercise our discretion to disregard oral argument offered by their counsel. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.882(c)(1)(B).)

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Treybigs filed an unlawful detainer complaint seeking unpaid rent for October 2023 and November 2023 on residential real property occupied by Meza and Ramirez and located at 319 South Broadway, Santa Ana, California. Prior to the scheduled trial, the Treybigs accepted payment of past due rent and allowed Meza and Ramirez to retain possession of the property. The Treybigs filed a dismissal without prejudice on May 10, 2024, followed by a dismissal with prejudice six days later. Meza and Ramirez sought costs of $2,607.55 as prevailing parties. The Treybigs filed a motion to strike costs, accompanied by the Declaration of Steven Silverstein in which he declared after continuance of an April 25, 2024 trial date, the parties agreed to settle the action, with Meza and Ramirez agreeing to remit payment of rent for September 2023 through April 2024 and in exchange for payment, the Treybigs agreeing to allow them to remain as tenants. The Treybigs contended there was no prevailing party, but if there was a prevailing party, it was the Treybigs, because they had a net monetary recovery consistent with Code of Civil Procedure2 section 1032, subdivision (a)(4). In opposition, Meza and Ramirez submitted the joint declaration of Araceli Meza and Jose Ramirez wherein they declared the Treybigs brought the action based on false claims they failed to pay rent for October 2023 and November 2023 when, in fact, they tried repeatedly to pay rent for October 2023, but the Treybigs refused to accept, and/or returned uncashed, the checks they presented. They also declared the Treybigs closed the bank account into which they regularly deposited their rent checks. Consistently,