Gallardo

Gallardo v. Specialty Restaurants Corp.

Good Law
100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 884·2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 824·2000 Daily Journal DAR 11516·84 Cal. App. 4th 463·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8700
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 27, 2000B134963California2,392 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Introduction

In this application for a writ of supersedeas, Robert Hahn seeks to stay enforcement of the portion of the judgment entered in favor of defendant Specialty Restaurants Corporation for Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 costs, contending that enforcement of those costs is automatically stayed pending resolution of the appeal in this matter. Hahn contends that portion of the judgment is subject to an automatic stay, even though the judgment also included an award for section 998 expert witness costs, for which Hahn essentially concedes an undertaking must be secured in order to stay enforcement pending appeal. We agree with Hahn and therefore grant the writ of supersedeas.

Factual and Procedural Background

Robert Hahn was one of five plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit for employment discrimination brought against Specialty Restaurants. Specialty Restaurants’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of Specialty Restaurants on July 8, 1999. Specialty Restaurants was awarded expert witness costs pursuant to section 998 in the approximate amount of $3,000 and routine costs pursuant to section 1032 in…

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.