Page 1
C.A. Orders L.A.S.C. to Refund $23,000 in Motion Fees
Defendants Who Paid Excessive Fees Did Not Seek Relief in Trial Court or by Way of Appeal or Writ Petition; Request Was Made in Respondents’ Brief on Appeal; Opinion Says Plaintiff Entitled to Taxing of Costs
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has ordered the Los Angeles Superior Court to make a refund of $23,000 to 26 prevailing defendants in a wage-and-hour suit, holding that only one $500 motion-fee need be paid where multiple defendants join in a summary judgment motion—granting relief that was not sought by way of an appeal or a writ petition, but only as a request contained in their respondents’ brief.
A refund must be made, Justice Anne H. Egerton of Div. Three decreed in an unpublished opinion filed Tuesday, because “justice demands” it.
The appellant is Charlie Cruz. He and co-worker Edwin Loais sued their employer, Gardena Honda, under the Labor Code’s Private Attorney General Act for alleged wage-and-hour violations, and also sued 46 other supposedly affiliated entities.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard L. Fruin awarded those 46 entities summary judgment in Cruz’s action against them, and awarded summary judgment to them and to Gardena Honda in Loais’s lawsuit.
Cruz appealed from Fruin’s denial of his motion to tax costs in the amount of $11,255.32—his proportional share of the statutorily unauthorized fees imposed on the prevailing defendants. That denial, he asserted in his brief on appeal, “was error because the filing fees should never have been collected in the first place under the plain meaning of Government Code § 70617(d).”
Communication From Clerk
The 27 defendants, all represented by attorney Ronald H. Bae, initially paid a $500 motion fee. The lawyer was advised by a court clerk on Oct. 14, 2021, that unless each defendant paid $500, their joint summary judgment motion could not be heard on Oct. 29, as scheduled.
Payment was made on Oct. 19. A hearing on the motion was continued, and on Jan. 19, 2022, Fruin acted on the summary judgment motions, holding that only the company that owned Gardena Honda was the employer of Cruz and Loais.
The defendants made no motion for a refund of the additional $23,000 they paid in motion fees and Loais did not move to tax costs.
The respondents argued on appeal that Fruin properly denied Cruz’s motion to tax costs, but added:
“[S]hould the Court determine that the trial court erred in assessing a $500 per-defendant fee for the filing of defendants’ [motion for summary judgment], Respondents respectfully request that this Court include in its order on appeal an order requiring the trial court to reimburse Respondents for all overcharged filing fees….”
Defendants Were Overcharged
Agreeing with Cruz that the defendants were overcharged, Egerton wrote:
“Section 70617(d) provides: ‘The fee for filing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication of issues is five hundred dollars ($500).’ This concise subdivision is clear and unambiguous on its face: The superior court is authorized to charge $500—no more, no less—for filing one (i.e., “a”) motion for summary judgment. (…italics added.) Nothing in the language of this subdivision authorizes the court to charge more than $500 when two or more litigants file a single summary judgment motion.”
Egerton proceeded to declare that costs imposed on non-party Loais, as well as Cruz, totaling $23,000, must be taxed; that the non-party Los Angeles Superior Court must make a refund to the defendants of the $23,000 in overcharged fees; and that the defendants must “reimburse plaintiff Edwin Loais for whatever part of the cost award he has paid for the excessive filing fees, if any.”
She explained that under precedent, where one part of a judgment is “interwoven” with other portions, the entire judgment may be examined.
Required by ‘Justice’
The justice declared:
“Neither Loais nor defendants appealed or otherwise challenged the trial court’s assessment of excessive filing fees for the summary judgment motion. We are nevertheless compelled to reverse the award of all costs attributable to those excessive filing fees and to direct the trial court to order reimbursement of those excessive fees to defendants. The errors with respect to the nonappealing parties are not just interwoven with, but identical to, the reversible error we have found with respect to Cruz. Because we have concluded the superior court has no authority under section 70617(d) to charge more than $500 to file a single motion for summary judgment, justice requires that none of the unauthorized fees be awarded as costs and that all the unauthorized fees be reimbursed.”
The case is Cruz v. Lithia Motors, Inc., B322242.
Bae and Olivia D. Scharrer of the Pasadena firm of Aequitas Legal Group joined with Pasadena lawyer Carson M. Turner in representing Cruz. Shirley C. Wang, Michelle L. Younkin and Andrew J. Mailhot of San Francisco’s Saber Law Group acted for the defendants/respondents.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company