Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee

The parties before us have been embroiled in litigation in one form or another for over a decade. 1 Originally a dispute between property investors, the genesis of the present conflict was a suit in which each side alleged malicious prosecution by the opposing parties and their respective counsel in the underlying property lawsuit, and each side successfully obtained dismissal of the other’s malicious prosecution claims through a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against *638 public participation) statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; 2 see Lien v. Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc., supra, 163 Cal.App.4th 620 (Lien).) Far from resolving the litigation through these dismissals, the parties have continued to litigate over the fees and costs which the anti-SLAPP statute provides to a prevailing party. (See Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at pp. 130-131, 136-139 (Lucky).)

The current battle is over the proper method of calculation of interest owed on the various fee and cost awards. More specifically, the question is the date on which interest begins to accrue on postjudgment awards of fees and…

I agree with the judgment of the majority in this case, as well as its conclusion that Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 125 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 159 ] (Lucky) is law of the case as to the date that interest begins to accrue on a postjudgment award of costs and fees that were incurred before the judgment. I write only to set forth the basis for the rule we summarized in an abbreviated fashion in Lucky, to avoid any misapprehension that it is inconsistent with our ruling today.

In Lucky, we explained that the principal amount of a judgment consists of the damages awarded plus costs (including attorney fees). (Lucky, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 137 ; Code Civ. Proc., § 680.300.)* 1 We noted that, once the amount of costs is established after judgment entry, the court clerk enters the costs on the judgment. (Lucky, at p. 137; Cal. Rules of Court, rule *657 3.1700(b)(4).) We then cited Bankes v. Lucas (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 365, 369 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 723 ] (Bankes), which teaches that postjudgment awards of costs incurred prejudgment are entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the original judgment entry. (The court in Bankes explained: “Generally, when a…