Coastline RE Holdings Corp. v. Brillouet CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Law of the case Our previous opinion affirming the original attorneys’ fee order is binding pursuant to the “law of the case” doctrine. “ ‘The decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case.’ ” (Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482, 491.) However, the “law of the case” doctrine should not apply if it “would result in an unjust decision, e.g., where there has been a manifest misapplication of existing principles resulting in substantial injustice, or where the controlling rules of law have been altered or clarified by a

3 decision intervening between the first and second appellate determinations.” (Id. at pp. 491-492.) We conclude the “law of the case” applies here. Brillouet does not claim any intervening change in the law. Nor would a substantial injustice result given the costs incurred by Coastline to evict the Brillouets from the property and obtain damages for lost rent. The “law of the case” doctrine also applies to attorneys’ fees on appeal. The deed of trust…