Legal Opinion
City of Santa Paula v. Narula
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 17, 2003No. B160389PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GILBERT, P. J.
Attorney fees are permitted when authorized by contract, statute or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) A city ordinance allows the city to collect attorney fees incurred in foreclosing a lien on real property. Just as “. . . a rose is a rose . . .” so is an ordinance a statute when it permits recovery of attorney fees.
Mohan and Sylvia Conway Narula (the Narulas) appeal a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to the City of Santa Paula (the City). We conclude that: 1) the Narulas are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Davies v. KrasnaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Children's Hospital & Medical Center v. BontaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Armstrong v. ArmstrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Rental Housing Assn. of Northern Alameda County v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Woodland Park Management, LLC v. City of East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- CITY OF MONTE SERENO v. PadgettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Asphalt Professionals v. Fairland Liquidating Corp. CA2/6California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Corrigan v. Kent CA2/6California Court of Appeal · 2014
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.