Page 1
Los Angeles Superior Court Appellate Division:
Clock for Fee Request After De Novo Review Starts With Notice of Superior Court’s Decision
Opinion Says City Was Not Justified in Waiting Until It Received Document Labeled ‘Final Judgment’
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court has held that the party seeking attorney fees, following de novo review in the Superior Court of an administrative order, is required by the Rules of Court to file the request within 30 days of a qualifying “notice of decision” and is not justified in waiting for a document titled “final judgment.”
The opinion was filed Dec. 30; Div. Five of the Court of Appeal for this district on Friday determined that transfer of the case to itself was unnecessary; and the decision was publicly released on Monday.
Appealing a denial of a motion for fees was the City of Duarte, which requested an award of $45,078.93 against Armando Mendoza after the resident unsuccessfully appealed an administrative decision upholding a citation against him for violating municipal code sections regulating noise and the number of animals that may be kept on a property.
Mendoza sought de novo review under Government Code § 53069.4(b), which provides:
“[W]ithin 20 days after service of the final administrative…decision of the local agency is made pursuant to an ordinance enacted in accordance with this section regarding the imposition, enforcement, or collection of the administrative fines or penalties, a person contesting that final administrative…decision may seek review by filing an appeal to be heard by the superior court, where the same shall be heard de novo….A proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case.”
Then-Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Latrice A.G. Byrdsong (now a judge) upheld the citations in a “notice of decision” dated, and served on both parties, on Oct. 13, 2023. The city filed a motion requesting attorney fees 66 days later, on Dec. 18.
The deadline for filing a post-decision motion for attorney fees is determined by an interplay between two California Rules of Court—Rules 3.1702(b)(1) and 8.822(a)(1). Rule 3.1702(b)(1) provides that “[a]notice of motion to claim attorney’s fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court…must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under…rule[] 8.822…in a limited civil case.”
As to the timeline for appealing, Rule 8.822(a) specifies:
“[A] notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of:
“(A) 30 days after the trial court clerk serves the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, showing the date it was served;
“(B) 30 days after the party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, accompanied by proof of service; or
“(C) 90 days after the entry of judgment.”
Based on this scheme, Byrdsong denied the city’s motion as untimely, saying that “[f]or administrative appeals, the operative event is the court’s issuance of the Notice of Decision….rather than a “‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment….”
Meinhardt Decision
On appeal to the Appellate Division, the municipality pointed to the 2024 California Supreme Court decision of Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale, decided after Byrdsong’s ruling, which held that the time frame for appealing an administrative writ of mandate begins with the entry of “judgment” rather than the filing of any earlier “order” or ruling.
In an opinion, written by Judge Alex Ricciardulli, and joined in by Acting Presiding Judge Sanjay T. Kumar and Judge Kimberley B. Guillemet, the Appellate Division affirmed Byrdsong’s denial, saying:
“The statutory scheme at issue in Meinhardt is different from the one in [this] case…, in that, the issuance of no judgment or order is contemplated after a court in a de novo review of an administrative hearing provides its final decision in the matter. Unlike with administrative mandate writs, where a court will enter an order denying or granting a writ and subsequently enter formal judgment on the order, the court’s decision following de novo review fully resolves the matter. Government Code section 53069.4 does not state, as with the statutes at issue in Meinhardt, the ‘court shall enter judgment’ in order to end the matter.”
He continued:
“Meinhardt noted appellate opinions ‘contemplated that there will be entry of a formal judgment following an order granting or denying a petition for writ of administrative mandate.’…Unlike in Meinhardt, no published appellate opinion has held a document titled ‘judgment’ must follow a court’s decision…following a de novo review of an administrative citation….”
Dispositive Issue
The jurist opined:
“The dispositive issue before us is whether the October 13 decision, issued following the de novo review by the court, amounted to a ‘filed-endorsed copy of the judgment’ under California Rules of Court, rule 8.822(a)(1)(A). We conclude it did.”
Ricciardulli pointed out that case law has determined that a decision by a trial court following de novo review of an administrative citation constitutes an appealable judgment, saying that jurisprudence has made clear that an appeal may be taken from an order that serves as the “final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding.”
Applying this framework, he declared:
“[T]he “Notice of Decision” served on the parties on October 13, even though it was not labeled ‘judgment,’ was the final determination of the rights and liabilities of Mendoza and the City following the de novo hearing, and there was nothing following the decision for Mendoza to do but to comply with the citation. The decision was signed by the court and file-stamped with the date it was entered, and thus constituted ‘a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, showing the date it was served[,]’ within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 8.822(a)(1)(A).”
The case is Mendoza v. City of Duarte, 24APLC00050.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company