IAHLDHFAPIMP_PAP v. Noll CA4/1

Filed 8/11/21 IAHLDHFAPIMP_PAP v. Noll CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IAHLDHFAPIMP_PAP, LLC, D077727

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2017- 00023167-CU-OR-CTL) ELIZABETH NOLL,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard E. L. Strauss, Judge. Reversed with directions. Knottnerus & Associates, Wilfred Knottnerus, Mark B. Simpkins; Friedhofer and James Friedhofer for Plaintiff and Appellant. English & Gloven, Donald A. English and Christy I. Yee, for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION This appeal challenges an order awarding attorney fees and costs to Defendant Elizabeth Noll (Noll) as the prevailing party in litigation involving a property dispute with her neighbor, Plaintiff IAHLDHFAPIMP_PAP, LLC

(IAHL). While this appeal was pending, in a separate appeal, IAHLDHFAPIMP_PAP, LLC v. Noll (May 17, 2021, D077279) [nonpub. opn.] (IAHL I), we reversed the judgment on which the challenged attorney fee and cost order was based. IAHL has filed a motion seeking summary reversal of the attorney fee and cost order in light of our decision in IAHL I. Noll does not oppose IAHL’s motion for summary reversal but contends IAHL’s request for costs on appeal should be denied because IAHL I rendered this appeal moot. For the reasons explained below, we summarily reverse the order

awarding attorney fees and costs.1 We award costs on appeal to IAHL. SUMMARY REVERSAL The court may summarily reverse a trial court order where (1) “the proper resolution of the appeal is so obvious and without dispute that briefing would not serve any useful purpose” (Weinstat v. Dentsply Internat., Inc. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1224), and (2) the parties have waived oral argument (see Moles v. Regents of University of California (1982) 32 Cal.3d 867, 870). Reversal of the judgment in IAHL I eliminates the basis for the attorney fee and cost award. To recover attorney fees and costs, a claimant must show he or she was the prevailing party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b) [“a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding”]; Civ. Code, § 1717 [“In any action on a contract, . . . the