Ko v. Liang CA2/8

Filed 5/27/21 Ko v. Liang CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

XU YANG KO, B303813

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC596209) v.

HOU YOU LIANG et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed.

WHGC and Michael G. York for Defendants and Appellants.

DiJulio Law Group, R. David DiJulio and Tiffany Krog for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

The Ko family and the Liang family entered into a real estate transaction some 16 years ago. Since then, the parties have been embroiled in litigation. This appeal follows closely on the heels of the Liangs’ last appeal. In the last appeal, the Liangs asked us to reverse the trial court’s granting of attorney fees in connection with Ko’s 2015 lawsuit. Now the Liangs ask us to reverse the trial court’s granting of attorney fees relating to previous appeals spawned by the 2015 lawsuit. The Liangs make the same argument in this appeal as they did in the previous. For the same reasons, we reject that argument and affirm the judgment. In 2005, the Liangs and Kuo Feng Ko signed a real estate purchase agreement. The agreement contains a provision allowing the prevailing party in an action on the contract to obtain attorney fees. The agreement conditions the right to fees on the prevailing party mediating before filing suit. Kuo Feng Ko brought suit to enforce the agreement. The trial court decided the lawsuit in Kuo Feng Ko’s favor in 2008 and awarded attorney fees. Kuo Feng Ko assigned his interest in the 2008 judgment to his son Xu Yang Ko. Xu Yang Ko brought suit in 2015 to enforce the 2008 judgment. The trial court decided the 2015 lawsuit in Xu Yang Ko’s favor. The Liangs brought multiple appeals relating to the 2015 action. They lost each. On Xu Yang Ko’s motion, the trial court awarded him attorney fees relating to two of these appeals in the amount of $45,150. The Liangs appeal this award of attorney fees, arguing Xu Yang Ko lacks any entitlement to attorney fees because he did not mediate before filing suit. The Liangs made this argument in their last appeal. It meets the same fate here.