Fiscal Funding v. Dones CA1/3

Filed 2/13/15 Fiscal Funding v. Dones CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

FISCAL FUNDING CO., INC, Plaintiff and Appellant, A140460 v. ALAN DONES et al., (City and County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CPF-10-510388) Defendants and Respondents.

Fiscal Funding filed a petition for a writ of mandate in superior court challenging an arbitrator’s order disqualifying its attorney, Calvin Grigsby. Grigsby also happens to be Fiscal Funding’s sole owner, officer, and director. The trial court denied the writ petition and awarded Respondents attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $55,698. Respondents subsequently moved to amend the judgment to add Grigsby as an alter ego judgment debtor. They also moved for an award of additional attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the motion. The trial court granted Respondents’ motion to amend and awarded $13,067.50 in additional attorney’s fees. Fiscal Funding challenges the amendment of the judgment to include Grigsby on at least five separate grounds. We need not address these arguments because Fiscal Funding lacks standing to challenge actions that affected only Grigsby. We also find unavailing Fiscal Funding’s contention that the trial court erred by awarding Respondents additional post-judgment attorney’s fees.

1

I. BACKGROUND1 In 1998, Grigsby loaned $719,000 to Strategic Urban Development Alliance (SUDA), a real estate transaction management firm founded by Alan Dones and John Guillory. In exchange, Fiscal Funding, an entity created and controlled by Grigsby, received a 20 percent interest in SUDA. In 2003, Dones, Guillory, and Grigsby, on behalf of Fiscal Funding, executed the SUDA Operating Agreement and appointed themselves as members and managers of the organization. The Operating Agreement includes a provision allowing the prevailing party in litigation among SUDA’s members to recover attorney’s fees. In March 2008, Fiscal Funding filed an arbitration action against Dones, Guillory, and SUDA. Among other things, Fiscal Funding alleged that it had been wrongfully frozen out of the management of the company, and that Dones and Guillory misappropriated SUDA funds for personal use. Grigsby eventually assumed legal representation of Fiscal Funding, and Dones and Guillory moved to disqualify him on the ground that he had acted as SUDA’s counsel of record on many of the issues being litigated in the arbitration. The arbitrator granted the motion. Fiscal Funding subsequently filed a petition for a writ of mandate against Dones and Guillory and their attorneys (collectively, Respondents), among others. Respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing, among other things, that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order of the arbitrator. The trial court granted the motion, entered judgment in favor of Respondents, and ordered Fiscal Funding to pay Respondents $55,698 in attorney’s fees and costs. In a separate appeal, Fiscal Funding challenged these rulings. While the instant appeal was pending, we affirmed. (Fiscal Funding Co., Inc. v. Dones, supra, A135451.)