McCullough

City of Oakland v. McCullough

Caution
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 528·46 Cal. App. 4th 1·53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 531·96 Daily Journal DAR 6487·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4028
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 4, 1996A070219California2,893 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

I. Introduction

Vemolia McCullough appeals from a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees and costs in the amount of $100,005.48 incurred in a drug house abatement action by the City of Oakland. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11570 et seq.) We hold that the statutory authorization for an award “to the prevailing party” in such actions, of “costs, including the costs of investigation and discovery, and reasonable attorneys’ fees” (Civ. Code, § 3496), includes the salaries and overhead expenses of government attorneys and law enforcement personnel attributable to the investigation and prosecution of the action.

II. Background

The City of Oakland sued Vemolia McCullough under the drag house abatement law, alleging multiple arrests for drug offenses at her property. The court rendered judgment closing the property for one year and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11581, subd. (b)). In a postjudgment costs order, after receiving supporting declarations and holding an evidentiary hearing, the court approved the city’s costs memorandum in the sum of $100,005.48. This appeal is solely from the costs order.

III. Discussion

A. Overhead Expenses

The costs…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.