Ruballos v. Ruballos CA2/8

Filed 5/26/16 Ruballos v. Ruballos CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

ROSA RUBALLOS, B268343

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC531515) v.

WILFREDO RUBALLOS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Suzanne G. Bruguera, Judge. Reversed.

Henry W. Bockman for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Bradford L. Treusch and Bradord L. Treusch for Defendants and Respondents.

_____________________________________

This is the second appeal in this matter. In the first appeal, Rosa Ruballos (Ruballos) challenged a trial court order granting a defense motion to strike her second amended complaint and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. We affirmed the trial court judgment in a nonpublished opinion (Ruballos v. Ruballos, et al. (Mar. 2, 2016, B261781.) The instant appeal challenges the subsequent trial court order awarding attorney fees to defendants Wilfredo Ruballos, Yensi Zaldana, Duglas Ruballos, and Ana Ruballos (collectively “defendants”). We reverse the attorney fee award. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As explained in greater detail in our prior opinion, Ruballos’s complaint arose out of a dispute between the parties regarding a five-year lease Ruballos’s husband, Jose Ruballos, signed with defendants in May 2012 (“the lease”), prior to the dissolution of the marriage.1 The lease allowed defendants—Jorge’s relatives—to occupy one-half of a duplex the couple owned. Ruballos was not a signatory to the lease. A March 2013 dissolution judgment awarded Ruballos exclusive use of the property.2 In or around June 2013, Ruballos unsuccessfully attempted to evict defendants. According to Ruballos, she learned of the lease only after she initiated the unlawful detainer proceedings. The court hearing the unlawful detainer action found the lease was valid and in effect until 2017; the duplex was community property Ruballos and Jorge owned equally; Ruballos’s eviction proceedings were not brought in good faith and constituted a retaliatory eviction; and Ruballos’s testimony was not credible. The court deemed the action a frivolous suit and ordered Ruballos to pay defendants’ attorney fees. Ruballos then filed another lawsuit, alleging defendants conspired to defraud her by secretly entering the lease.