On Judgments

In Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 43, review granted June 15, 2022, No. S274147, the California Supreme Court will decide whether the trial court’s order denying a writ of administrative mandamus was a “judgment” triggering the time to appeal or whether that was a later filed document entitled “judgment.” Meinhardt highlights the confusion in California law as to what is or is not a judgment. One line of cases, exemplified by Dhillon v. John Muir Health (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1109, 1115, holds that a ruling nominally denominated as an “order” may, in fact, constitute a “final judgment” when such order has the effect of a final judgment. That is because it is “not the form of the decree but the substance and effect of the adjudication which is determinative.” (Ibid.) This is so unless, of course, it is an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend or granting summary judgment, which are not judgments. (E.g., Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1032, fn. 1 [demurrer]; Levy v. Skywalker Sound (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 753, 761, fn. 7 [summary judgment].) The same goes for a final statement of decision, even if it is the court’s final determination of the issues before it. (Industrial Indemnity Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003, fn. 3.) Yet, “[a] memorandum of decision may be treated as an appealable order or judgment when it is signed and filed, and when it constitutes the trial judge’s determination on the merits.” (Estate of Lock (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 892, 896.) There is a simple way around this quagmire. California should adopt – by statute, rule, or judicial decision – the federal standard: A judgment must be a separate document that does not contain how it was arrived at. (Fed. Rule Civ. Proc., rule 58 [“Every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document”].)

In California, statutorily, “[a] judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 577.) But that definition is circular. It is a judgment, if it is final. But it is final, if it is a judgment. The federal rule would add some needed clarity. But, in fact, even a well-recognized judgment is not the final determination of the parties’ rights in the trial court. Costs, including attorney fees, come after entry of judgment. It is usually not a big issue with run-of-the-mill statutory costs, e.g., filing fees. But attorney fees and Code of Civil Procedure section 998 costs can be another story. Indeed, section 998 costs can be awarded to a party which did not prevail below but merely did better than its settlement offer and can result in the ultimate judgment being in favor of a different party. The logical rule would be to delay finality of a judgment – and the need to appeal – until attorney fees and section 998 costs are determined. (See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc., rule 58(e) [district court may delay entry of judgment, and hence time to appeal, pending determination of attorney fees].)

There’s another problem with California judgments. They are overly long. They list who counsel were, how long the trial was, how many witnesses were called, etc. For some reason counsel and judges insist on reciting the verdict verbatim in the judgment. The statement of decision in a bench-tried case or a summary judgment order is not incorporated. Some say the verdict needs to be there for the appellate court. But the verdict – like a statement of decision or summary judgment order – is in the record. The appellate court can find it easily. And all the unnecessary and unwieldy pages upon pages obscure the judgment’s true task. Judgments are operative documents, like deeds. They say, for example, that party 2 owes party 1 $X. The audience for a judgment is a deputy sheriff or deputy clerk who is tasked with enforcing it, perhaps many years later. Judgments should be written with this audience in mind. They should be written as a set of operative directions to a deputy sheriff or deputy clerk, without unnecessary cluttering and distracting surplusage. Yet no California appellate court has expressly said this. One should.

Bottom line:

California should adopt the federal separate judgment rule;

Attorney fee motions and motions for Code of Civil Procedure section 998 costs should stay the finality of judgments; and

Judgments should be cut down to contain only the information essential to enforcement.