Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court of Orange County, Super. Ct. Nos. 05CC11646, 06CC06705, 06CC06992 Kazuharu Makino, Judge. Motion to augment the records on appeal. Request for judicial notice. Judgments affirmed. Motion and request granted.
Wildish & Nialis, Mark A. Nialis, N. Ramsey Barcik and Michael F. Fagiani for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Willis | Depasquale, Larry N. Willis and Stephanie N. Rachel for Defendant and Respondent N.R.L.L., Inc.
Law Offices of Robert A. Walker and Robert A. Walker for Defendants and Respondents Silverado Canyon Limited Partnership, Linda Fulton and Wayne Fulton.
OPINION
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
These appeals are companion cases to Stoughton v. N.R.L.L., Inc. (May 13, 2010, G041516) [nonpub. opn.]. The latter appeal was taken from judgments entered for defendant N.R.L.L., Inc. and defendants Silverado Canyon Limited Partnership, and its limited partners, Linda and Wayne Fulton, after the trial court granted defendants’ motions for nonsuit at the close of plaintiffs’ case-in-chief. Although both judgments authorized defendants to recover their costs, the amounts were left blank. Plaintiffs took their first appeal from these judgments. (Case No. G041516.)
Defendants subsequently filed memoranda of costs and the trial court awarded costs to each of them. Instead of inserting the amount of costs awarded to each defendant in the blank spaces contained in the previously entered judgments, the court entered new judgments for each defendant. Plaintiffs initially took separate appeals from each judgment, but this court subsequently granted a request to consolidate them.
In their opening brief, plaintiffs contend they felt compelled to file appeals from the latter judgments to avoid being barred from challenging the trial court’s ruling on the merits. While the sole difference between the judgments at issue in these appeals and the judgments challenged in case No. G041516 is the costs awards, the focus of the present appeals is the correctness of the trial court’s nonsuit ruling. Plaintiffs concede they “do not challenge the amount of the [cost] awards, ” but solely “take issue with the imposition of an award of costs on the grounds that the ruling on the [m]otion[s] for [n]onsuit w[ere] not supported by law.” Thus, they argue that if “an underlying judgment is reversed on appeal, the post[]judgment cost award should also be vacated” because “the basis for an award of costs fails....” The balance of their opening brief merely repeat the arguments asserted in case No. G041516.
Since, as discussed in the Stoughton v. N.R.L.L., Inc., G041516, the judgments should be affirmed, these judgments should be affirmed as well.
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed. Appellants’ motion to augment the record on appeal and request that we take judicial of the appellate record in case number G041516 are granted. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: MOORE, J., FYBEL, J.