Court Opinion

ID: 9865756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 20:04:04.276895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:51:54.814783
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/25/23 Singer v. Bluh 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                     FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 RUSSELL SINGER,

      Plaintiff and Appellant,                                           G061604

           v.                                                            (Super. Ct. No. 30-2020-01140136)

 CORIE BETH BLUH et al.,                                                 OPINION

      Defendants and Respondents.

                   Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Derek W. Hunt, Judge. Reversed.
                   Prenovost, Normandin, Dawe & Rocha, Michael G. Dawe and Brian D.
Cronin for Plaintiff and Appellant.
                   Law Office of Desiree Causey and Desiree V. Causey for Defendants and
Respondents.
              Russell Singer appeals from a postjudgment award of attorney fees. The
award was based on a finding that defendants Corie Beth Bluh and Paul “Buff” Weaver
were the prevailing parties pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 (all further statutory
references are to this code). The underlying judgment was separately appealed by Singer
and we concluded it should be reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
(Singer v. Bluh (Sept. 25, 2023, G061324, G061326) [nonpub. opn.] (Singer I).)
Accordingly, we conclude here that the attorney fees award resting on the judgment
should be reversed as well.
                                          FACTS
              The underlying facts are set forth in our opinion in Singer I, supra,
G061324, G061326, and we do not repeat them. Relevant here, after the trial court
entered judgment in defendants’ favor, it awarded them $53,828 in attorney fees pursuant
to section 1717.
              We reversed the judgment in Singer I, supra, G061324, G061326. Our
decision is now final.
                                      DISCUSSION

              When an appellate court reverses an underlying judgment, an award of
attorney fees authorized by section 1717 premised on that judgment must also be
reversed. (See Klajic v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 5, 16
[reversing fees award based on Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5].) The party that received the
award is no longer a prevailing party for purposes of section 1717 and we need not
address the parties’ contentions regarding the soundness of the award.

                                             2
                                    DISPOSITION
             The order awarding attorney fees is reversed. Singer is awarded his costs
on appeal.

                                               O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

SANCHEZ, J.

MOTOIKE, J.

                                           3