City of El Monte v. Lincoln CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Feb 23, 2026 No. B344087Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney fees to the respondent, holding that Civil Code section 3496 provides an independent basis for fee recovery and that the City failed to provide an adequate record to support its claim that it incurred no fees. Furthermore, the court held that a party may 'incur' attorney fees for purposes of a fee award even if they are not personally obligated to pay them, such as in contingency fee arrangements.

Issues

Whether Civil Code section 3496 provides an independent basis for an attorney fees award in a nuisance abatement action.
Whether the City met its burden to demonstrate that it incurred no attorney fees under the El Monte Municipal Code.
Whether the City provided an adequate record on appeal to challenge the trial court's factual findings regarding attorney fees.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Civil Code section 3496 provides an independent basis for the attorney fees award in this matter.”

“An appellant has “a duty to provide an adequate record on appeal to support his claim of error. [Citation.] In the absence of an adequate record, the judgment is presumed correct.””

“It is well established that “a party may ‘incur’ attorney fees even if the party is not personally obligated to pay such fees.””

Filed 2/23/26 City of El Monte v. Lincoln CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

CITY OF EL MONTE, B344087

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22PSCV00257) v.

TUCKER LINCOLN,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lynette Marie Gridiron Winston, Judge. Affirmed. Enso Law and David R. Welch for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kashfian & Kashfian, Ryan D. Kashfian, Robert A. Kashfian and Troy D. Krouse for Defendant and Respondent. ________________________________

The City of El Monte (City) appeals from a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to respondent Tucker Lincoln. The record presented on appeal by the City is inadequate, and the City’s contention that respondent was not entitled to attorney fees otherwise fails. We accordingly affirm the order. BACKGROUND The initial complaint in this matter was filed by the City in March 2022 against respondent and numerous other defendants. The City pleaded a cause of action for abatement based upon allegations that the defendants ran an illegal marijuana operation through retail storefronts and engaged in other illegal activity. The complaint sought recovery of the City’s attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 3496. In response to the complaint, respondent filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted by the trial court, with leave to amend the complaint. The City subsequently filed a first amended complaint, again pleading a cause of action for abatement and seeking attorney fees under Civil Code section 3496. In contrast to the initial complaint, which listed only one law firm as attorney for the City, the first amended complaint listed two firms, Enso Law, LLP (Enso firm) and Olivarez Madruga Law Organization, LLP (Olivarez firm). This addition of a separate law firm was apparently in response to a trial court finding that the initial complaint did not indicate that the Enso firm was independently authorized to bring the lawsuit on behalf of the City. Respondent filed a demurrer, which the trial court sustained, with leave to amend. The City’s second amended complaint again pleaded a nuisance cause of action and sought attorney fees under Civil Code section 3496, listing both the Enso firm and the Olivarez firm as attorneys. The trial court sustained another demurrer filed by respondent, this time without leave to amend, finding that the second amended complaint contained no allegations linking any unlawful activity by respondent to

City of El Monte v. Lincoln CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

CITY OF EL MONTE, B344087

TUCKER LINCOLN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

RICHARDSON, J.

AI Brief