Tandeka McCann vs Community Action Commission of Santa Barbara County

Case Number

17CV01397

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 10/06/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Strike/Tax Costs

Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

This matter is continued to December 8, 2023. Any opposition to the motion is to be filed and served no later than November 3, 2023, and any reply to opposition shall be filed and served no later than November 24, 2023. Defendant shall give notice of this ruling, unless waived at the hearing, no later than October 10, 2023.

Background:

This is an employment harassment and discrimination complaint brought by plaintiff Tandeka McCann, on March 29, 2017, against her former employer defendant Community Action Commission of Santa Barbara (CAC). By way of the complaint, McCann set forth causes of action for: (1) racial harassment; (2) racial discrimination; (3) failure to prevent harassment and discrimination; (4) FEHA retaliation; (5) whistleblower retaliation; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

CAC filed its answer on May 10, 2017, asserting a general denial and sixteen affirmative defenses.

On May 1, 2023, trial commenced. Following evidence and argument at trial, on May 15, 2023, the jury returned its special verdict finding in favor of McCann and awarding compensatory damages in the amount of $3,250,000.00. Notice of entry of judgment was filed and served on July 5, 2023.

CAC filed the present motion to strike or tax costs on July 27, 2023. No opposition or other response has been filed by plaintiff.

Following the filing and service of the present motion, as well as denied motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, CAC filed a notice of appeal on September 25, 2023.

Analysis:

“Except as provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.9, inclusive, and in Section 116.810, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a).)

“[I]t is well established that despite ‘finality’ a trial court can set aside a wholly void judgment, correct clerical errors in the judgment, modify certain kinds of judgments, exercise powers which it has expressly reserved, rule upon a pending motion to tax costs, make any of a variety of orders in enforcement of the judgment, and, in general deal with and dispose of matters which can be classified as ‘ancillary and collateral’ to the judgment.” (Marini v. Municipal Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 829, 834.)

It is unclear to the court whether plaintiff’s failure to file and serve opposition to the motion to strike or tax costs was intentional or if it was based on the mistaken belief that all aspects of the action are stayed due to the filing of the notice of appeal. Pursuant to the above authorities, and others, the court retains the ability to rule on the motion despite the notice of appeal.

As such, out of an abundance of caution, the court will continue the hearing on the motion to give plaintiff an opportunity to file and serve opposition.