L.A. Memorial Coliseum Com. v. Insomniac, Inc. CA2/5

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJuly 15, 2015
DocketB257155
StatusUnpublished

This text of L.A. Memorial Coliseum Com. v. Insomniac, Inc. CA2/5 (L.A. Memorial Coliseum Com. v. Insomniac, Inc. CA2/5) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
L.A. Memorial Coliseum Com. v. Insomniac, Inc. CA2/5, (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Filed 7/15/15 L.A. Memorial Coliseum Com. v. Insomniac, Inc. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

LOS ANGELES MEMORIAL B257155 COLISEUM COMMISSION et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. BC472814)

v.

INSOMNIAC, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Terry A. Green and Gregory W. Alarcon, Judges. Reversed. Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Charles E. Slyngstad, Brian S. Ginter for Plaintiffs and Appellants. The Kaufman Law Group, Gary J. Kaufman, Colin A. Hardacre, Natasha L. Hill for Defendants and Respondents Insomniac, Inc. Mennemeier Glassman, Eric J. Glassman for Defendants and Respondents Go Ventures, Inc. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs and appellants (plaintiffs)1 appeal from the trial court’s postjudgment orders awarding attorney fees to defendants and respondents (defendants)2 as prevailing parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021. On January 27, 2015, we reversed the judgment in favor of defendants upon which the postjudgment attorney fees orders were based. The parties agree that our reversal of the judgment warrants summary reversal of the attorney fees orders because there are no prevailing parties entitled to such fee awards under section 1021. (See Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 545, 572; Gilman v. Dalby (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 606, 620.) We agree with the parties and therefore reverse the postjudgment orders awarding attorney fees to defendants. Plaintiffs are awarded costs on appeal.

1 Plaintiffs are the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Association. 2 Defendants are Insomniac, Inc. and GoVentures, Inc.

2 DISPOSITION

The postjudgment orders awarding attorney fees to defendants are reversed. Plaintiffs are awarded costs on appeal. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MOSK, J.

We concur:

TURNER, P. J

KIRSCHNER, J.

 Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gilman v. Dalby
176 Cal. App. 4th 606 (California Court of Appeal, 2009)
Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank
213 Cal. App. 4th 545 (California Court of Appeal, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
L.A. Memorial Coliseum Com. v. Insomniac, Inc. CA2/5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/la-memorial-coliseum-com-v-insomniac-inc-ca25-calctapp-2015.