Filed 7/9/26 Immigrant Rights Defense Council v. Sklar CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS B345528
DEFENSE COUNCIL, LLC,
(Los Angeles County
Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No.
24STCV04208)
v.
IZABELLA SKLAR et al.,
Defendants and
Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Upinder S. Kalra, Judge. Reversed and
remanded.
Medvei Law Group and Sebastian M. Medvei for Plaintiff
and Appellant.
Robert Gentino for Defendants and Respondents.
I. INTRODUCTION
Immigrant Rights Defense Counsel, as the prevailing
plaintiff in an action filed under the Immigrant Consultants Act
(the ICA; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22440 et seq.), filed a
postjudgment memorandum of costs, seeking to recover attorney
fees for enforcing its judgment against defendants. The trial
court denied the request for attorney fees on the sole ground that
such fees were not recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure
section 685.040 (section 685.040). Because the court’s
interpretation of section 685.040 is contrary to controlling
authority, we reverse and remand the court’s order denying
postjudgment attorney fees.
II. BACKGROUND
On February 20, 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint to enjoin
defendants1 from violating provisions of the ICA. On April 12,
2024, the trial court entered a judgment enjoining defendants
from violating the ICA and ordered that plaintiff “shall be
entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”
On December 17, 2024, plaintiff filed a memorandum of
costs after judgment, seeking $5,250 in attorney fees, pursuant to
section 685.040, for costs incurred from April 25, 2024, to
December 17, 2024, and $280.57 in filing fees.
On December 24, 2024, defendants filed a motion to tax or
strike costs, arguing that “such costs have been satisfied and are
improper.”
1 Defendants are Izabella Sklar, Access Legal Services and
Same Day Marriage In Los Angeles, Inc.
2
On April 3, 2025, the trial court conducted a hearing on
plaintiff’s request for postjudgment attorney fees and defendants’
motion to tax costs. The court cited to section 685.040 and Code
of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a), and found that
because plaintiff had not filed an action “for breach of contract”
but “[i]nstead … for [a] statutory violation,” plaintiff was
required to “file a motion to recover these attorney’s fees.”
Because plaintiff had not filed a noticed motion but had instead
filed a memorandum of costs, the court denied plaintiff’s request
for postjudgment attorney fees. The court did not consider the
merits of defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s request for
attorney fees and costs had been satisfied.
Plaintiff timely appealed.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
We review questions of statutory interpretation, including
whether a statute allows for the recovery of attorney fees, de
novo. (Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1213.)
B. Analysis
A party may file a memorandum of costs to recover costs,
including attorney fees, it incurs in its efforts to enforce a
judgment so long as those attorney fees are “allowed by [s]ection
685.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.070, subd. (a)(6); G.F. Galaxy
Corp. v. Johnson (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 542, 545.) Section
685.040 provides that: “The judgment creditor is entitled to the
reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment.
3
Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are not included
in costs collectible under this title unless otherwise provided by
law. Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are
included as costs collectible under this title if the underlying
judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment
creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of
subdivision (a) of [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 1033.5.”
Here, the trial court interpreted section 684.040 to allow for
the recovery of attorney fees incurred in enforcing a judgment
only where a party was entitled to such fees pursuant to a
contract. That interpretation, however, ignores the second
sentence of section 685.040, which permits the recovery of
attorney fees incurred in enforcing a judgment if “otherwise
provided by law.” The ICA, specifically, Business and Professions
Code section 22446.5, subdivision (b), provides that a prevailing
plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees. And
where, as here, “a fee-shifting statute provides the substantive
authority for an award of attorney fees, any such fees incurred in
enforcement of the judgment are within the scope of section
685.040.” (Conservatorship of McQueen (2014) 59 Cal.4th 602,
614.) The court therefore erred when it interpreted section
685.040 to allow for the filing of a memorandum of costs for the
recovery of attorney fees only where a contract provided for such
fees. (Cf. American Humane Assn. v. Los Angeles Times
Communications (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1103 [finding that
a prevailing party in an anti-SLAPP motion may recover attorney
fees by making a motion for fees “or as part of a cost
memorandum”].) We therefore reverse the court’s order and
remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion on
whether plaintiff can meet its burden to show that its request for
4
fees is reasonable or that it incurred such fees in connection with
its efforts to enforce a judgment.
IV. DISPOSITION
The order denying postjudgment costs is reversed and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Plaintiff is awarded costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM (D.), J.
We concur:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
BAKER, J.
5