City of La Verne v. Gonzalez CA2/2

Filed 12/31/14 City of La Verne v. Gonzalez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 LA VERNE, B254777

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC464193) v.

MICHEL GONZALEZ et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael Johnson, Judge. Affirmed.

Wallin, Kress, Reisman & Kranitz, Robert L. Kress, Cary S. Reisman, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Michel Gonzalez, David Snow in pro. per., for Defendants and Appellants.

* * *

Michel Gonzalez (Gonzalez) and David Snow (Snow) (collectively, defendants) challenge the trial court’s order awarding attorneys fees under Civil Code section 1717 to the City of La Verne (City). Because the City achieved its litigation objectives, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees and accordingly affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2007, the City and defendants agreed to settle defendants’ ongoing lawsuit against the City by signing a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (Agreement). Two provisions of the Agreement are relevant to this appeal: (1) defendants agreed to convert the apartment on their property back into a garage within nine months; and (2) the parties agreed that attorneys fees could be awarded to a “prevailing party” who sued to enforce the Agreement. After nearly four years went by with defendants yet to complete the conversion, the City sued them seeking (1) specific performance of the Agreement, (2) injunctive relief, and (3) disgorgement of the rents defendants were improperly collection for renting out what should be a garage. Following an unreported bench trial, the trial court granted the City’s prayer for specific performance and issued a permanent injunction. Both orders required defendants to evict their tenant and to convert the apartment back into a garage, on pains of having to disgorge rents collected after the date of judgment. The court also determined that the City was “the prevailing party in this litigation”, and thus entitled to attorney’s fees under 1 the Agreement. The court subsequently awarded fees of $35,438. Defendants timely appealed. DISCUSSION Defendants level three attacks at the trial court’s ruling: (1) the trial court erred in declaring the City to be the “prevailing party” entitled to attorney’s fees; (2) the trial