Wallace v. Alameda County Management etc. CA1/5

Filed 1/25/22 Wallace v. Alameda County Management etc. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

MICHAEL WALLACE et al., A162044 Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG20051170) ALAMEDA COUNTY MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Certain members of the Alameda County Management Employees Association (the Union) successfully sued the Union and members of its board of directors (collectively, respondents). The suing Union members (appellants) then sought prevailing party attorney fees, which the trial court denied as untimely. We affirm. BACKGROUND In January 2020, appellants sued respondents for conduct relating to a recent Union board election. Appellants asserted two causes of action: (1) a petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) alleging respondents breached their fiduciary duties and Union bylaws in connection with the

1

election, and seeking a writ setting aside the election and directing a new election; and (2) a declaratory relief claim seeking a declaration that respondents breached their fiduciary duties and Union bylaws. Appellants filed a brief in support of the petition, arguing respondents breached fiduciary duties and bylaws. Respondents filed an opposition to the “petition . . . and verified complaint for declaratory relief.” (Capitalization altered.) On February 13, the trial court issued an order granting writ relief, directing the election be vacated and a new election held with certain terms.1 In July, respondents filed a return stating a new election was held in April in compliance with the court’s order. On September 17, appellants filed a motion for attorney fees as the prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The motion argued appellants “achieved complete success and a full remedy in this action.” Respondents opposed the motion as untimely because it was filed more than 180 days after the court’s February 13 order and the return did not extend the time to file the motion. In their reply, appellants argued no final judgment had yet issued in the action, the declaratory relief claim remained unresolved, and appellants were seeking “interim attorney fees.” The trial court denied the fee motion as untimely, finding the February 13 order was a final judgment resolving the entire action. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION “A notice of motion to claim attorney’s fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court . . . must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under rules 8.104 and 8.108