Mi Ryong Song v. Lee

Full title: MI RYONG SONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUK K. LEE, Defendant and…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

Date published: Mar 18, 2013

B238268 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2013)

Opinion

B238268

03-18-2013

MI RYONG SONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUK K. LEE, Defendant and Respondent.

Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad and Jason R. Litt, Parker Shumaker Mills and David B. Parker for Plaintiff and Appellant. Yoka & Smith and Christopher E. Faenza, Murchison & Cumming and Edmund G. Farrell III for Defendant and Respondent.

EPSTEIN

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC418479)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Reversed.

Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad and Jason R. Litt, Parker Shumaker Mills and David B. Parker for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Yoka & Smith and Christopher E. Faenza, Murchison & Cumming and Edmund G. Farrell III for Defendant and Respondent.

Mi Ryong (Mimi) Song appeals from an award of attorney fees to respondent Suk Ki Lee as prevailing party in the underlying action for breach of a confidential settlement agreement. In a related appeal (Song v. Lee, case No. B235336) we reversed the judgment in favor of Suk K. Lee and remanded for a new trial. Based on that reversal, it follows that the award of attorney fees must also be reversed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

The complicated factual and procedural history of the dispute between the parties is fully set out in Song v. Lee (case No. B235336). We confine our procedural summary to the award of fees by the trial court.

After the jury reached a verdict in favor of respondent Lee, judgment was entered in his favor. He was found to be the prevailing party and was awarded a total of $233,921.04 in fees and costs. Song filed a timely appeal from that order.

DISCUSSION

Since we reversed the judgment in favor of respondent and remanded for a new trial, we also must vacate the attorney fee and cost award in Lee's favor. (Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1436-1437.)

DISPOSITION

The order of costs and fees in favor of respondent is reversed. Appellant is entitled to her costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EPSTEIN, P. J. We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

MANELLA, J.