Court Opinion

ID: 9385665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 19:02:39.935619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:03.633506
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/7/23 Slaughter v. Old Republic Home Protection Co. CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

DJUANIQUE SLAUGHTER,                                       B318158

         Plaintiff and Appellant,                          (Los Angeles County
                                                           Super. Ct. No. BC700457)
         v.

OLD REPUBLIC HOME
PROTECTION COMPANY,
INC.,

     Defendant and
Respondent.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Gregory W. Alarcon, Judge. Affirmed.
     Djuanique Slaughter, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
     Claytor Law Group and James D. Claytor for Defendant
and Respondent.
                          ******
       Djuanique Slaughter (appellant) appeals from an order
denying her motion to tax costs following trial court proceedings
arising out of respondent Old Republic Home Protection Co.,
Inc.’s (respondent) petition to confirm an arbitration award.
Appellant has failed to show error, therefore the order is
affirmed.

                          BACKGROUND1
      On April 23, 2018, appellant filed a first amended
complaint (FAC) against respondent claiming breach of contract,
negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation,
fraud, insurance bad faith, breach of fiduciary relationships and
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The
controversy between the parties arose after a pipe broke in
appellant’s home causing damage in 2016-2017. Appellant sued
respondent under a contract between the parties.
      On May 22, 2018, respondent filed a demurrer to the FAC.
Thereafter the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave
to amend as to the causes of action for insurance bad faith,
breach of fiduciary relationship and breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. The court overruled the demurrer as
to the causes of action for breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and fraud.
      On July 24, 2018, respondent filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which was granted. On August 27, 2018, notice of

1      We note that appellant has failed to provide citations to the
record in the fact section of her opening brief on appeal, in
violation of California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).
However, in this matter we decline to strike the brief or order
corrections.

                                 2
entry of the order granting respondent’s motion to compel
arbitration was filed.
       Following an arbitration, appellant’s claims against
respondent for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation,
intentional misrepresentation and fraud were denied. Each
party was ordered to pay its own attorney fees and costs.
       Respondent filed a petition to confirm the arbitrator’s
award in superior court. Following the trial court’s July 28, 2021
confirmation of the award, respondent filed a memorandum of
costs, seeking $1,256 for its costs and fees accrued in filing the
petition to compel arbitration and petition to confirm arbitration
award.
       On August 13, 2021, appellant filed a motion to tax costs.
       The trial court held a hearing on appellant’s motion to tax
costs and granted respondent its requested costs and denied
appellant’s motion to tax costs.
       Appellant filed her notice of appeal from the post-judgment
order on January 10, 2022.

                           DISCUSSION
      Unless otherwise expressly provided by statute, a
prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in
any action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).) A
court must award costs to the prevailing party in a judicial
proceeding to confirm an arbitration award. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 1293.2; Cohen v. TNP 2008 Participating Notes Program, LLC
(2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 840, 878.) Appellant does not dispute that
respondent was the prevailing party on both the petition to
compel arbitration and the petition to confirm the arbitration
award.

                                  3
       We review the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to
tax costs for abuse of discretion. (Coastline JX Holdings LLC v.
Bennett (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 985, 1013.)
       Appellant has failed to show that the trial court abused its
discretion in its ruling. Appellant argues “There was an abuse of
discretion in this case because there was an arbitration ruling
that specifically stated: ‘each party is ordered to pay their own
attorney fees and costs.’ ” Appellant provides no other grounds
for reversal, nor does she cite any legal authority supporting her
position that the arbitrator’s decision on costs and fees of
arbitration is relevant to the trial court’s award of costs and fees
incurred in the trial court proceedings.
       The trial court addressed this issue in its written ruling,
stating:
             “Insofar as [appellant] intends to rely on the
       Arbitrator’s ruling, it is not authenticated; and
       moreover the award orders each party to pay their
       own attorney fees and costs with respect to claims
       submitted to the Arbitration, and not purporting to
       order the parties to pay their own attorney fees and
       costs with respect to Los Angeles Superior Court
       proceedings either before or after the arbitration.”
       The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that the arbitrator’s ruling concerning costs and fees incurred in
the arbitration was not applicable in the trial court. Nor did the
trial court abuse its discretion in following statutory law stating
that respondent is entitled to its fees and costs in the trial court
proceedings.

                                  4
                             DISPOSITION
          The order is affirmed. Respondent is awarded its costs of
     appeal.
          NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                        ________________________
                                        CHAVEZ, J.
We concur:

_______________________
LUI, P. J.

_______________________
HOFFSTADT, J.

                                    5