Campagna v. Gatley Properties
Filed 1/21/10 Campagna v. Gatley Properties CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JAMES CAMPAGNA,
Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant
and Respondent, H034112
(Santa Clara County
v. Super.Ct.No. CV769000)
GATLEY PROPERTIES, LLC,
Defendant, Cross-Complainant
and Appellant,
KENNETH ARUTUNIAN,
Defendant, Cross-Defendant
and Respondent.
__________________________________/
This is the third appeal related to a dispute over the terms of a commercial lease. On this occasion appellant Gatley Properties, LLC (Gatley) contests a postjudgment order denying its request for attorney fees. Gatley contends that it was the prevailing party and therefore was entitled to attorney fees pursuant to the lease and Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(1). We find the issue to be moot and therefore dismiss the appeal.
Background
In the prior two appeals we discussed the provisions of the lease calling for base rent and overage rent payable by respondent James Campagna. In our most recent opinion, filed August 19, 2009 (H033518), we remanded the matter to the superior court for a recalculation of the overage rent to which Gatley was entitled and for a determination of prejudgment interest.
The judgment giving rise to the decision in H033518 had been entered nearly one year earlier, on August 25, 2008. On October 24, 2008, Gatley moved for attorney fees as the prevailing party. On February 13, 2009, while briefing was underway in H033518, the superior court denied Gatley's motion, finding that "neither side was the prevailing party." The court articulately summarized the basis of this determination, noting that in the valuation of the property at issue, Campagna had understated the market value by $300,000 and Gatley had overstated it by $400,000, when measured against the court's ultimate calculation. Thus, neither party had prevailed.
Discussion
Gatley seeks independent review and reversal of the superior court's order denying the motion for attorney fees. Specifically, Gatley contends that the court erred as a matter of law -- or alternatively, abused its discretion -- by failing to determine that Gatley was the prevailing party in the action.
Campagna observes, however, that the court's prevailing-party determination was premised on findings that were overturned in the subsequent appeal. Because there is not yet a final decision, Campagna argues, Gatley cannot be deemed the prevailing party.[1] We agree. When this court reversed the August 25, 2008 judgment, we expressly declined to resolve the parties' dispute over the amount of overage owed to Gatley. The underlying claims thus remained unresolved, and any issue that arose directly from that dispute, such as who won overall, was moot. "A case is moot when any ruling by this court can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief." (Woodward Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Garreks, Inc. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 880, 888; accord, Van't Rood v. County of Santa Clara (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 549, 560.) Clearly the postjudgment order was based on the August 25, 2008 findings, which were to be revisited following our latest remand. Because a prevailing-party determination depends on the relative success of the parties in the underlying proceeding, and because the degree of that success was not finally determined at the time of the order, the present challenge to that superseded ruling is moot. "The prevailing party determination is to be made only upon final resolution of the contract claims and only by 'a comparison of the extent to which each party ha[s] succeeded and failed to succeed in its contentions.' " (Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 876.) As we stated in H033518 with regard to prejudgment interest, we will not invade the province of the trial court by taking on the issue of which party prevailed. The judge presiding over this matter is thoroughly familiar with the facts, the parties, and the issues and is fully capable of making the determination as to which party prevailed following the judgment upon remand.
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed.
______________________________
ELIA, J.
WE CONCUR:
_______________________________
RUSHING, P. J.
_______________________________
PREMO, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Kenneth Arutunian, one of the original contracting parties and a defendant in the underlying action, has joined in the arguments made in Campagna's appellate brief.
