Tietz v. Chaddick CA2/6

Filed 10/20/20 Tietz v. Chaddick CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

NATALIE GRACE TIETZ, 2d Civil No. B303694 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2019- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00529069-CU-HR-VTA) (Ventura County) v. KATHRYN CHADDICK, Defendant and Respondent.

Natalie Grace Tietz appeals an order awarding Kathryn Chaddick $1,435 attorney fees and costs after appellant dismissed her civil anti-harassment action. (§ 527.6.)1 Chaddick filed a motion for $1,000 attorney fees (§ 526.7, subd. (s)) and had to pay a $435 first appearance fee to put the motion on calendar. Granting the motion, the trial court awarded Chaddick $1,435 fees and costs. We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

Procedural History Appellant, a hair stylist at Chaddick’s beauty salon, was terminated and filed an anti-harassment petition against Chaddick on June 7, 2019. (§ 527.6.) Appellant dismissed the action on August 6, 2019, after the trial court declined to issue a TRO and continued the trial. Chaddick filed a motion for attorney’s fees a month later, stating that she paid a $1,000 flat fee to her attorney to represent her in the action. Appellant opposed the motion on the ground there was no “lodestar” accounting of the fees incurred. Chaddick’s trial attorney responded with a declaration of the work performed and said he had to pay a first appearance fee ($435) to file the motion for attorney’s fees. The trial court found that Chaddick was the prevailing party within the meaning of section 527.6 and that appellant “was put on notice since July 22nd, 2019, of the request for attorney’s fees and costs. There was no motion to tax costs, so I’m going to order attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $1,435, and that’ll be the order.” The trial court overruled appellant’s objection that “there was no notice in the moving papers for costs . . . and there was no Memorandum of Costs filed.” Form Over Substance Appellant concedes the failure to file a memorandum of costs is not jurisdictional but claims it “must” be filed before a trial court awards costs. (Hydratec, Inc. v. Sun Valley 260 Orchard & Vineyard Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 924, 929 [time provisions for filing a memorandum of costs, while not jurisdictional, are mandatory]; but see San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. Board of Nat’l Missions (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d