Filed 12/2/21 Cui v. Secured Capital Limited Partnership CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL CUI,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

SECURED CAPITAL LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

D078538

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2019-

00041913-CU-FR-CTL)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Ronald L. Styn, Judge. Reversed.

Liu & Wakabay and Youjun Liu for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Mulvaney Barry Beatty Linn & Mayers, Patrick L. Prindle and George 

A. Rios III for Defendants and Respondents.

Paul Cui appeals a postjudgment order awarding defendants Secured 

Capital Limited Partnership (Secured Capital) and El Dorado Properties, Inc. 

(El Dorado) approximately $97,000 in prevailing party attorney fees and 

costs. Cui contends that because our court has since reversed the underlying 

judgment in a separate appeal (Cui v. Secured Capital Limited Partnership
2

(June 28, 2021, D078110) [nonpub. opn.] (Cui I)), we must now also reverse 

the postjudgment order awarding fees and costs. We agree, and will do so.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October 2018, Secured Capital filed an unlawful detainer complaint 

against Cui alleging he breached a commercial lease. The parties resolved 

the suit in December 2018 with a stipulated judgment under which Cui 

agreed to forfeit the lease, surrender possession of the leased premises, and 

pay specified rent for the interim period. 

About seven months later, in August 2019, Cui filed an unlimited civil 

suit against Secured Capital and its real estate broker, El Dorado. As later 

amended, the complaint asserted causes of action against Secured Capital for 

intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, concealment, 

premises liability, and breach of contract; and against El Dorado for 

intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and concealment 

(but not for premises liability or breach of contract). The gist of Cui’s claims 

was that the defendants had misrepresented the suitability of the leased 

premises for Cui’s intended use. 

Secured Capital and El Dorado moved for summary judgment (or, in 

the alternative, summary adjudication) on the basis that the stipulated 

judgment in the unlawful detainer case barred Cui’s current claims. The 

trial court granted the motion. 

About two weeks later, on October 2, 2020, Secured Capital and El 

Dorado filed a motion seeking prevailing party attorney fees and costs. 

About two weeks after that, on October 14, the trial court entered 

judgment for Secured Capital and El Dorado. Cui appealed the judgment the 

following day. 
3

About two months later, on December 11, 2020, over Cui’s opposition, 

the trial court granted the defendants’ motion and awarded them prevailing 

party attorney fees and costs totaling $96,964.69. Cui appealed this order 

about one week later. 

About 18 months later, on June 28, 2021, our court filed Cui I, in which 

we reversed the underlying judgment in this case on all claims except for 

Cui’s premises liability claim, which he did not challenge on appeal. (Cui I, 

supra, D078110.)

DISCUSSION

Cui contends that because we reversed the underlying judgment in 

Cui I, we must likewise reverse the postjudgment order awarding fees and 

costs. We agree.

“ ‘An order awarding costs falls with a reversal of the judgment on 

which it is based.’ ” (Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1284; see 

Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1027

(Harris) [an “award of costs necessarily falls with the judgment”]; Gillan 

v. City of San Marino (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1053 [“Our reversal of the 

judgment necessarily compels the reversal of the award of fees as costs to the 

prevailing party based on the judgment.”]; Evans v. Southern Pacific 

Transportation Co. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1378, 1388 [“Because the award of 

costs to defendant was incident to the judgment, reversal of the judgment 

operates to vacate the award.”].) 

This holds true even when, as here, the judgment was reversed as to 

fewer than all causes of action. (See Harris, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at 

1021 [reversal of postjudgment fee and cost order required where judgment 

was reversed as to only one of three causes of action]; Ventas Finance I, LLC 
4

v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1207, 1212 [reversing fee award 

following partial reversal of judgment].)

The cases Secured Capital and El Dorado cite to support a contrary 

conclusion are inapposite because none involved reversal of an underlying 

judgment. (See Abdallah v. United Savings Bank (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 

1101, 1104, 1105-1106, 1111; Erickson v. R.E.M. Concepts, Inc. (2005) 

126 Cal.App.4th 1073, 1077; Fed-Mart Corp. v. Pell Enterprises, Inc. (1980) 

111 Cal.App.3d 215, 229.) 

Accordingly, we will reverse the postjudgment order awarding attorney 

fees and costs.

DISPOSITION

The postjudgment order awarding attorney fees and costs to Secured 

Capital and El Dorado is reversed. Cui is entitled to his costs on appeal.

HALLER, J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

DATO, J.