Sarkany v. West

• Decision Date: 30 August 2022
• Docket Number: A162441
• Citation: 82 Cal.App.5th 801,298 Cal.Rptr.3d 809
• Parties: Jennifer SARKANY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Christie WEST et al., Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

82 Cal.App.5th 801
298 Cal.Rptr.3d 809

Jennifer SARKANY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
Christie WEST et al., Defendants and Appellants.

A162441

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Filed August 30, 2022

Hooshmand Law Group, Mark Hooshmand, San Francisco, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Tarrington, O'Neill, Barrack & Chong, Norman L. Chong, Joseph D. O'Neil, San Francisco, for Defendants and Appellants.

Miller, J.

82 Cal.App.5th 804

298 Cal.Rptr.3d 811

The Code of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to "waive a provision for a bond in an action or proceeding and make such orders as may be appropriate as if the bond were given." ( Code Civ. Proc. § 995.240.) Waiver of a provision for a bond requires a determination by the court that the principal "is indigent and is unable to obtain sufficient sureties," and

82 Cal.App.5th 805

requires the court to consider various factors, including "the character of the action or proceeding," and "the potential harm to the beneficiary if the provision for the bond is waived." (Ibid. ) The primary issue in this appeal is whether a trial court has authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 995.240 to waive the requirement that a bond or undertaking be given to stay the enforcement of a money judgment pending appeal. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 917.1, subdivision (a).) We conclude that a trial court does have that authority, and accordingly we affirm the order challenged by the plaintiffs in this appeal. We also dismiss defendants’ cross-appeal of an amended judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The underlying matter is a lawsuit filed by residential tenants Jennifer Sarkany, Ramsey Abouremeleh, Sandra Fierro, and Nina Robin (plaintiffs) against Christie West, who was their landlord, and her son Timothy West, who was part owner of property they rented.

After a jury trial, judgment was entered for each plaintiff against each of the two defendants. The judgments against Christie West totaled $201,245.50, of which $75,000 was for punitive damages; and the judgments against Timothy West totaled $67,550. The trebling of certain damages was to be determined separately, as was the determination of prevailing party attorney fees and costs. The trial court later granted Timothy West's motion for new trial, and denied Christie West's new trial motion on the condition that plaintiffs consent to a remittitur of total punitive damages to $15,000, in view of the court's finding that the punitive damages award was excessive in light of Christie West's "negative net income and limited net worth." Plaintiffs consented to the remittitur and defendants posted a supersedeas bond for the judgment in the amount of $221,064.75.

On October 28, 2020, the trial court issued an order granting plaintiffs an additional award of $684,282.50 in attorney fees, plus costs and the trebling of certain damages, as against Christie West (October 2020 order).¹

298 Cal.Rptr.3d 812

In early November 2020, plaintiffs requested entry of an amended judgment that would reflect the fees, costs, and trebling awarded against Christie West in the October 2020 order, and would delete any reference to the jury's verdict as to Timothy West in light of the court's new trial order.

82 Cal.App.5th 806

Later in November plaintiffs filed a motion to require the posting of a bond for the additional amount awarded in the October 2020 order, to the extent Christie West sought a stay of enforcement. Plaintiffs’ primary argument was that under Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1, a further bond was necessary to stay enforcement of the October 2020 order.² Defendants then filed a motion under section 995.240 for waiver of bond, seeking to stay enforcement of the October 2020 order without an undertaking.³ Plaintiffs opposed the motion to waive the bond requirement on the ground that Christie West had not carried her burden to show that the requirements of section 995.240 had been met.

After a hearing on the pending motions, the trial court found that defendants qualified for a waiver under section 995.240 based on a showing of indigency, granted defendants’ motion to waive an additional or increased bond, and denied plaintiffs’ motion to increase the bond (February 2021 order).⁴ The court also issued an amended judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against Christie West in the total amount of $1,137,744.21 (February 2021 amended judgment).⁵ More than half the amended judgment (approximately $684,000) was for attorney fees.

Plaintiffs then raised a new issue in a motion to set aside the February 2021 order: they argued that the court had lacked jurisdiction to grant

82 Cal.App.5th 807

defendants’ motion for waiver of bond in light of section 918.⁶ The trial court denied plaintiffs’

298 Cal.Rptr.3d 813

motion to set aside as an improper motion for reconsideration under section 1008.

The parties timely appealed, with plaintiffs challenging the February 2021 order waiving the bond requirement and the subsequent order denying their motion to set aside the February 2021 order, and defendants challenging the February 2021 amended judgment.

DISCUSSION

A...