Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

NAHEED AZIZ v. ANNE MASON-ARNOLD

November 29, 2010

NAHEED AZIZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT,
v.
ANNE MASON-ARNOLD, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT.



Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenn Mondo, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2008-00073535)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ikola, J.

Aziz v. Mason-Arnold

CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

Plaintiff Naheed Aziz appeals from an order awarding attorney fees and costs to defendant Anne Mason-Arnold and denying plaintiff's motion to tax costs. Plaintiff fails to provide an adequate record affirmatively showing any error. We affirm.

FACTS

Plaintiff asserts these facts in his briefs. Plaintiff applied for a temporary restraining order in June 2008, alleging defendant had harassed plaintiff at work. The parties entered into a stipulation whereby plaintiff dismissed the action in exchange for defendant's promise to stop coming to plaintiff's work. Defendant moved to recover attorney fees and costs in July 2008. The court granted the motion in September 2008, awarding $1,050 in attorney fees. Plaintiff satisfied the resulting judgment in March 2009 by paying defendant $1,050. Defendant filed a memorandum of costs seeking $15 in costs, $56.55 in interest, and $2,550.50 in attorney fees incurred in enforcing the judgment. The court awarded $2,600 in attorney fees and costs to defendant in July 2009.

Defendant adds the following assertions in her brief. The parties entered their stipulation on June 20, 2008, just before the court called the matter for hearing. The stipulation required plaintiff to dismiss the action with prejudice and entrusted the court with discretion to award attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff paid the $1,050 only after extended correspondence and negotiations between the parties, including the scheduling of a judgment debtor examination. Plaintiff did not include payment of $56 in postjudgment interest. Defendant incurred $2,622.05 in her attempts to collect the judgment.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff challenges defendant's entitlement to recover postjudgment attorney fees on two grounds. First, she asserts defendant failed to file a memorandum of costs before plaintiff fully satisfied the judgment. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 685.070 [judgment creditor claiming costs "shall file a memorandum of costs" "[b]efore the judgment is fully satisfied but not later than two years after the costs have been incurred"].)*fn1 Second, plaintiff contends "[n]either the underlying case nor order was pursuant to a contract action [, nor were] attorney's fees authorized by contract." (§§ 685.040 ["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" § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A)] 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A) [attorney fees allowed as costs when authorized by contract].)

Defendant contends she timely filed her motion to recover attorney fees as costs before plaintiff fully satisfied the judgment, noting plaintiff never paid the $56 in postjudgment interest. Defendant further asserts she was entitled to recover postjudgment attorney fees "as the prevailing party, . . . as a matter of 'right' under the statute, [section] 1032[, subd.] (b)." More persuasively, defendant states the underlying judgment provided for recovery of attorney fees pursuant to the parties' stipulation -- i.e., a contract. (See §§ 685.040, 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A).)

We are bound by "three fundamental principles of appellate review: (1) a judgment is presumed correct; (2) all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of correctness; and (3) the appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record affirmatively proving error." ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.