City of Santa Ana v. Yuh CA4/3

Filed 1/24/23 City of Santa Ana v. Yuh CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CITY OF SANTA ANA,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G060889

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2017-00955499)

LUNDAR YUH, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David A. Hoffer, Judge. Affirmed. Westen Law and Tin Westen for Defendant and Appellant. Ring Bender, Patrick K. Bobko; Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney, and Kyle Nellesen, Assistant City Attorney for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Lundar Yuh challenges the trial court’s postjudgment award of attorney fees against him and in favor of plaintiff, the City of Santa Ana. Defendant argues the trial court erred by permitting plaintiff to bring two separate attorney fee motions, one for each of the two firms that represented plaintiff during the proceedings, and by awarding excessive fees. We conclude plaintiff suffered no prejudice from any procedural irregularity and there was no abuse of discretion in the amount of fees awarded. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant was the lessee of a commercial property located in Santa Ana, California, from which defendant operated two illegal marijuana dispensaries. Plaintiff filed a petition against defendant and others seeking abatement of the property as a nuisance. The matter was tried in two phases, with judgment ultimately entered in plaintiff’s favor and against defendant. The judgment enjoined the use of the property for any purpose relating to marijuana and awarded abatement costs of $19,999.62 to plaintiff from defendant. Plaintiff then filed a motion for attorney fees. The motion was brought by the Ring Bender firm and sought $160,625 in fees (the “Ring Bender motion”). Plaintiff’s former counsel, the Jones & Mayer firm, which had represented plaintiff at earlier phases of the litigation (albeit not at trial) filed a second motion for attorney fees on plaintiff’s behalf, seeking an additional $207,990 (the “Jones & Mayer motion”). Both motions were supported by declarations and attorney billing records. Defendant opposed the motions, arguing plaintiff’s fees were excessive in light of the low dollar amount of the judgment and that the second motion was barred by 1 Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (a). The trial court granted the