Understanding the Fees and Costs of Superior Court Litigation

By Joe Sammartino, Esq.

Shareholder | Litigation Dept. Co-Chair

 

When a homeowners’ association ends up in court, it can be a costly process. Sometimes associations go to court to protect their rights and the rights of the community. Examples of these lawsuits are typically to enforce the governing documents or to enforce other contractual rights. Other times, associations are brought into court because they have been sued. Regardless of the merits of the case and regardless of which side of a case the association is on (plaintiff or defendant), fees and costs can add up very quickly.

 

The Process of Litigation

Litigation refers to the process of taking legal action in court. When an HOA files a lawsuit, it is essentially asking the court to enforce a rule or decision that the homeowner has violated. This can include things like unpaid dues, violations of the CC&Rs (such as illegal modifications to property or nuisances), or failure to follow community guidelines.

Litigation typically starts when the HOA files a complaint in Superior Court, the court that handles major civil cases in California. Before going to court, the HOA usually sends notices or warnings to the homeowner, letting them know that they are violating the rules. If an association (or member) intends to file a lawsuit solely for declaratory or injunctive relief (asking the court to decide the rights and duties of the parties and/or seeking an injunction to compel the defendant to do, or refrain from doing, something) the potential plaintiff must first offer formal Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) which typically takes the form of mediation.  If the homeowner doesn’t comply (or refuses to participate in ADR), the HOA may move forward with a lawsuit.

 

Costs Involved in Litigation

There are several categories of costs involved when an association decides to pursue litigation. These can include:

Court Fees: To start a lawsuit in Superior Court, the plaintiff must pay a filing fee. This fee varies depending on the type of case and the amount of money involved, but Superior Court cases are typically around $500 or a little more. Each defendant in the case will owe a similar amount of money to the court as a first appearance fee. After the first appearance, each filing with the court – briefs, case management statements, ex parte applications, by way of a few of the more common examples – will have a filing fee, ranging from $20 to $100 or more.

Attorneys’ Fees: Probably the single biggest cost for an association involved in litigation will be attorneys’ fees. Whether or the plaintiff or defense side of a case, an association will probably need to retain a lawyer to represent it in court; the exceptions are small claims cases (attorneys are not allowed) and cases in which the association is being sued and insurance defense counsel is provided by the association’s insurance company. The lawyers’ job includes preparing documents, attending court hearings, propounding and responding to written discovery, taking depositions, attending mediation, negotiating settlements, and making legal arguments on behalf of the association. Attorneys typically charge by the hour, and hourly rates depend on the lawyer’s experience, the complexity of the case, and the location where the association is located. In California, attorneys typically charge between $400 and $500 per hour or more.

While litigation can be expensive, under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, in lawsuits involving the enforcement of governing documents, the winning party may recover its attorneys’ fees. If the association wins a case against an owner to force compliance with a rule, the association can ask the court for its legal fees. On the flip side, if the owner wins, they may be able to recover their legal fees from the association.  Attorney’s fees incurred in Alternative Dispute Resolution can be included in the fees awarded even though it is typically before a lawsuit is formally filed.

In lawsuits that do not involve the enforcement of the governing documents, the general rule is that each side pays its own attorneys’ fees. There are a few exceptions to this rule, including breach of contract lawsuits in which the contract has an attorneys’ fees provision. Another exception are causes of action that have a specific right to attorneys’ fees under California law, such as some employment claims and bad faith lawsuits against insurance companies.

The possibility of recovering – or not recovering – attorneys’ fees under is an important factor for parties to consider. It provides an incentive for owners to follow the rules, as they could end up paying the association’s legal fees. It also gives associations the ability to recover some of their costs if they need to go to court to enforce the rules. Owners should be aware that they could be held responsible for paying legal fees if they are found to be in the wrong. This can be a very significant financial burden, so it is important all parties understand their rights and responsibilities under the law.

Discovery Costs: Discovery is the process whereby both parties investigate the case as completely as possible on their own, and also request and exchange information from each other before trial. This is done by asking written questions that are answered under penalty of perjury, requesting documents, taking depositions (questions asked orally that are answered under oath), and investigating and gathering evidence. Discovery can be a time-consuming and expensive part of litigation, especially if there are a lot of documents to review or witnesses to interview. The HOA may also need to hire experts or investigators to assist with the case, adding to the overall cost.

Other Related Expenses: In addition to filing fees, there likely will be other costs, such as charges for having subpoenas served on third parties, copying costs for records that are produced, and documents served personally on other parties. There also will be court reporter fees both for court hearings and for depositions. These costs quickly add up, especially if the case is lengthy or complicated.

Appeals: If either party is unhappy with the court or jury’s decision, they may appeal. Appeals can be costly because they involve additional legal work, including preparing legal briefs and attending appellate court hearings.

 

Considerations Before Litigating

Because of the potential costs involved, associations should carefully consider whether litigation is the best option. Pursuing a court action should typically be a last resort after most, if not all, other attempts to resolve the issue have failed, including sending letters, holding hearings, IDR and ADR. If a dispute does go to court, even if the association wins, the process can still be expensive and time-consuming, even if attorneys’ fees are recoverable. Lawsuits can be divisive within associations because the parties live (owners) and work (management) near each other. Additionally, witnesses and others who may become tangentially involved may feel unintended awkwardness or pressures.

It is not feasible to predict with any certainty how much a lawsuit will cost because it depends largely on how the other side prosecutes (or defends) the lawsuit.  Some litigants and their attorneys can be very aggressive and run up costs.

 

Conclusion

Litigating in Superior Court can be a costly process for associations. Some of that cost may be offset through the possible recovery of attorneys’ fees. To minimize costs, both associations and owners should carefully weigh the costs and benefits of pursuing litigation and explore all options for resolving disputes before going to court. By understanding the costs and fees as well as the process involved, everyone can make more-informed decisions about how to handle disputes in their communities.

Pickleball and Associations

 

By Joe Sammartino, Esq.

 

Pickleball is one of the fastest growing sports in the United States. It offers a plethora of benefits and adds significant value to associations, in the ways described in this article. By introducing pickleball, associations can enhance the quality of life for their residents, foster community spirit, and boost property values. The sport’s accessibility, social benefits, and health advantages make it an ideal addition to any residential community.

First and foremost, pickleball is highly accessible and inclusive. It combines elements of tennis, badminton, and ping-pong, and it is played on a smaller court with a lower net, making it less physically demanding than other racket sports. This accessibility allows individuals of all ages and fitness levels to participate, from children to seniors. The ease of learning the game ensures that new players can quickly pick up the basics and start enjoying themselves, which encourages widespread participation within the community. Additionally, the relatively low cost of equipment—primarily a paddle and a few balls—makes it an affordable option for all residents.

The social benefits of pickleball are substantial. The sport naturally lends itself to doubles play, promoting teamwork and interaction among players. By providing a shared interest and a gathering place, pickleball courts can help break down social barriers and foster new friendships among neighbors. Regularly scheduled games or tournaments can create a sense of tradition and camaraderie within the community, enhancing the overall social fabric. These interactions are particularly valuable in an association setting, where fostering a strong sense of community can lead to a more harmonious living environment.

Health benefits are another significant advantage of incorporating pickleball into a community. The game provides a full-body workout, improving cardiovascular health, coordination, balance, and agility. Regular physical activity is crucial for maintaining a healthy lifestyle, and pickleball offers an enjoyable way to achieve this. For older adults, in particular, the sport provides a low-impact exercise option that can help improve mobility and reduce the risk of chronic diseases. The social nature of the game also contributes to mental well-being, reducing stress and promoting a positive outlook.

From an economic perspective, the installation of pickleball courts can enhance property values within the community. Prospective homeowners often look for amenities that support an active and engaging lifestyle, and the presence of pickleball courts can be a significant selling point. Well-maintained recreational facilities reflect positively on the community, suggesting that the association is invested in providing a high quality of life for its residents. This perception can make properties more attractive to potential buyers, thereby increasing demand and property values.

Furthermore, pickleball can serve as a versatile amenity in community event planning. Association boards can organize clinics, leagues, and tournaments, providing structured opportunities for residents to engage with the sport. These events can attract participation from various demographic groups within the community, promoting inclusivity and ensuring that everyone feels welcome to join in the fun.

 

The Arguments Against Pickleball

On the other hand, while pickleball has gained popularity for its accessibility and social benefits, there are reasons some people argue it should be banned from community associations, primarily due to noise and other nuisance related complaints. Some of those reasons may be compelling.

The primary issue with pickleball in communities is the noise generated during play. The distinct “pop” sound of the ball hitting the paddle can be surprisingly loud and persistent to some residents. Given that pickleball games often last 60-90 minutes and are usually played as doubles, the noise can become a disruption to some. Residents living near pickleball courts often report disturbances, especially when games are played early in the morning or late into the evening. It is reasonable to argue that such noise disturbances may lead to stress, interrupted sleep, and a general decline in the quality of life for nearby residents.

Additionally, the noise nuisance can exacerbate tensions within a community. Disputes over pickleball noise can lead to conflicts between resident players and non-players, fostering division rather than unity. The very presence of pickleball courts can become a contentious issue at association meetings, consuming valuable time and resources that could be better spent addressing other community concerns.

Moreover, the nuisance extends beyond noise. Increased traffic and parking congestion around pickleball courts can disrupt the normal flow of the community. The solution to all of these problems is thoughtful rule-making with lots of input from the community. Enacting reasonable, concise operating rules, including putting in place limits on hours of play, types of paddles allowed to be used, and guest use of courts can significantly (and at no cost to the association) eliminate most potential issues or concerns.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the incorporation of pickleball by an association into a community offers numerous benefits that enhance the overall living experience for residents. Its accessibility and affordability make it an inclusive sport suitable for all ages, while its social and health benefits contribute to a stronger, healthier community. Economically, the presence of pickleball courts can boost property values and attract prospective homeowners. By fostering community spirit and providing a versatile recreational amenity, pickleball may prove to be a valuable addition to a community, promoting a vibrant, active, and cohesive living environment. While some boards may be tempted to ban pickleball outright, all of the benefits discussed above may certainly outweigh the potential for complaints regarding the noise nuisances pickleball allegedly creates.

The decision about whether or not to permit pickleball is not a one size fits all solution and should be considered by each board on a community-by-community basis. To avoid as many issues and complaints as possible, and rather than banning pickleball completely, boards should perform a reasonable inquiry into the benefits and possible detriments of adding pickleball to their communities. To perform such an inquiry, a board should consult with its management team, legal counsel, and other relevant experts to determine whether permitting pickleball is within the best interest of the association. If the board determines that pickleball is a worthwhile investment for their association, the association should follow an open, input-driven rule-making process to help ensure that pickleball play remains in harmony with the community. If the board decides that pickleball should not be allowed in the community, the board should work closely with legal counsel on the implementation of its ban.

Epsten, APC’s Attorney Joseph A. “Joe” Sammartino Promoted to Shareholder

Epsten, APC is pleased to announce that Joseph A. “Joe” Sammartino will become the firm’s newest Shareholder effective July 1, 2024. Joe also serves as the firm’s Litigation Department Co-Chair.

We are proud to welcome Joe as a Shareholder of our firm. This well-deserved promotion results from his hard work, dedication and demonstrated leadership skills,” said Kieran Purcell, CCAL, Managing Shareholder. “At Epsten, we believe that promoting the next generation of legal talent is essential to our ability to continue to provide first-class legal services to our clients.”

Joe has extensive experience litigating civil cases on behalf of and against major international companies. He has defended the rights of individuals in state and federal courts throughout California and around the United States.

I am honored to be promoted to Shareholder in one of California’s most experienced, well-regarded, and qualified community association law firms. Clients trust Epsten, a recognized industry leader, because we are uniquely equipped to handle the most complex of legal matters and the diverse variety of challenges Common Interest Developments face today,” said Joe.

Joe has handled all aspects of litigation from pre-litigation demands, negotiations, and settlements having served as lead counsel in over 350 depositions – mediation and settlement, arbitration, or trial and verdict in state and federal courts, including appeals.

The Importance of Having All the Facts at the Outset of Representing a Client in Litigation

 

By Joe Sammartino, Esq.

 

In the intricate and high-stakes world of litigation, thorough preparation is a cornerstone of effective legal representation. Central to this preparation is the necessity of gathering absolutely all the facts about a situation at the outset. This comprehensive understanding is crucial for several reasons: it informs the development of a robust legal strategy, ensures ethical conduct, enhances the credibility of the attorney, and ultimately increases the likelihood of a successful outcome for the client.

 

Developing a Robust Legal Strategy

A well-informed legal strategy is built on a foundation of complete and accurate facts. At the outset of representing a client, obtaining all necessary information allows an attorney to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the case comprehensively. To initiate the fact-finding process in a new case, the client must promptly share with the attorney all of the facts about the dispute, regardless of how old, indirectly related, or seemingly insignificant those facts may be. When in doubt err on the side of overinclusion, and let your attorney determine whether a fact is or is not relevant.

This initial fact-finding phase is essential for identifying the key legal issues, potential defenses, and the most compelling arguments to present. It enables the attorney to foresee possible challenges or weaknesses of the case and to plan accordingly, avoiding certain pitfalls that could arise from unforeseen evidence or aspects of the case.

Moreover, a detailed understanding of the facts aids in the effective allocation of resources to litigate the case. It helps the legal team decide where to focus investigative efforts, which expert witnesses to consult, and what evidence needs to be meticulously scrutinized or gathered. By having a clear picture from the beginning, an attorney can work more efficiently and strategically, ensuring that no critical detail is overlooked.

 

Ensuring Ethical Conduct

Ethical considerations are paramount in legal practice. An attorney is ethically bound to represent their client zealously while also maintaining integrity and honesty. Having all the facts of the case at the outset ensures that the attorney can provide candid advice to the client, outlining both the strengths and weaknesses of the case. This transparency is vital for managing the client’s expectations and for making informed decisions about whether to pursue litigation, negotiate a settlement, or explore alternative dispute resolution methods.

Additionally, complete knowledge of the facts prevents ethical breaches such as the inadvertent presentation of false or misleading information to the court. It also safeguards the attorney against potential conflicts of interest and ensures the attorney’s compliance with the duty of candor towards the tribunal.

 

Enhancing Credibility

An attorney’s credibility is a critical asset in litigation. Judges and juries are more likely to be persuaded by an attorney who demonstrates thorough knowledge of the case and presents well-substantiated arguments. Complete mastery of the facts at the outset allows the attorney to argue more confidently and persuasively. It also minimizes the risk of being caught off-guard by opposing counsel, which could undermine the attorney’s credibility and, by extension, the client’s position.

When an attorney is well-prepared and knowledgeable, it fosters trust not only with the court but with the client as well. Clients are more likely to have confidence in their legal representation when they see that their attorney has a deep understanding of their case and is prepared to advocate effectively on their behalf.

 

Increasing Likelihood of a Successful Outcome

Ultimately, the goal of litigation is to achieve a favorable outcome for the client. Having all the facts at the outset significantly enhances the chances of success. It allows the attorney to craft a coherent and compelling narrative, anticipate and counter opposing arguments, and present evidence in the most favorable light. Comprehensive preparation reduces the likelihood of surprises during the litigation process, such as unexpected testimony or newly discovered evidence that could adversely affect the case.

 

Conclusion

The importance of having all the facts at the outset of representing a client in litigation cannot be overstated. It is fundamental to developing a sound legal strategy, ensuring ethical conduct, enhancing the attorney’s credibility, and increasing the likelihood of a successful outcome. Thorough fact-finding at the beginning of a case sets the stage for effective advocacy and is a hallmark of professional and competent legal representation.

Joseph A. Sammartino Appointed Co-Chair of the Litigation Department

Epsten, APC’s Board of Directors, is pleased to announce that Joseph A. Sammartino has been appointed Co-Chair of the Litigation Department. Joe has litigated civil cases on behalf of and against major international companies and has defended clients in state and federal courts throughout California and the United States.

Joe has significant experience in litigation involving real estate disputes, contract disputes, business disputes, partnership disputes, trade secret disputes, real estate matters, construction, construction defect, product liability, professional liability, insurance bad faith, and employment matters. Joe has handled all aspects of litigation from pre-litigation demands, negotiations, and settlements through the filing of complaints, discovery, comprehensive motion practice, depositions – having served as lead counsel in over 350 depositions – mediation and settlement, arbitration, or trial and verdict in state and federal courts, including appeals.

Joe has served as outside general counsel for clients, providing services including: corporate structures, dispute avoidance and resolution, drafting and reviewing contracts, agreements and leases, nondisclosure agreements, partnership agreements, reseller and distributor agreements, professional services agreements, financing structures and deals, real estate leases and sales, easements, equipment sales and leases, severance agreements, employee handbooks, risk management policies and procedures, due diligence, and letters of intent for mergers and acquisitions.

What Duties Does an Association Have to Maintain Video Recordings?

Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court (2022) 86 Cal. App. 5th 940.

What Duties Does an Association Have to Maintain Video Recordings?

By Joseph A. Sammartino, Esq.

 

Technology is advancing at an ever-increasing pace.  The cellphones in our pockets are not just phones, — they­­  take pictures, send email and text messages, provide GPS navigation, play music, run hundreds of apps that do almost everything, and they have better higher resolution video capability than movie studios had in the 1990s.  As technology improved and shrunk (and became much less expensive), video cameras for security surveillance have become so commonplace that most people do not notice them and go about their daily lives as if the cameras were not there.  But what happens when one of those cameras – in one of our communities – records activity that leads to an inquiry that does not get resolved which turns into a dispute and ultimately becomes a lawsuit?  What duties does an association have to maintain those video recordings or face possible sanctions under the Code of Civil Procedure for spoliation of evidence?

On December 22, 2022, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its opinion in the case of Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court (Doe).  The court, in a different context, set forth the most current guidance on maintaining video recordings and other potential evidence.  The facts of the Victor Valley case are tragic and hopefully extraordinarily rare: two male high school students took a third male student, who was unsupervised, but who typically had full-time adult supervision both in and out of the classroom, from the cafeteria into a bathroom where they sexually assaulted him.  The school had video cameras in the cafeteria, and the assistant principal and a security officer reviewed the footage from the cafeteria cameras from a three-day period.  The third day of video included the recording of the two students taking the third student from the lunch table toward the locked bathroom.  Fourteen days later, because no one took any steps to preserve the video because each thought the other was saving it, the video was recorded over and lost forever.

Importantly, the court set forth the rules clearly and concisely: the safe-harbor provision of the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (f), “shields a party from sanctions for the spoliation [meaning the loss or destruction] of electronic evidence only if the evidence was altered or destroyed when the party was not under a duty to preserve the evidence, and the duty to preserve relevant evidence is triggered when the party is objectively on notice that litigation is reasonably foreseeable, meaning litigation is probable and likely to arise from an incident or dispute and not a mere possibility.”

While the court’s words are clear, they leave an important practical question unanswered: when is litigation likely to arise from an incident or dispute and instead of being a mere possibility?  That is a question that could be argued and debated before courts for decades without a clear, simple answer.  From a lawyer to a client, the simplest and best answer to that question is the age-old advice: better safe than sorry.  If there is video footage (or other evidence) that relates to any incident, issue, or dispute, it would be much better to take the steps necessary to preserve that evidence until final resolution is reached rather than to take the chance that an appellate court might decide years later that litigation was likely to arise and, therefore, to impose monetary sanctions against an association for destroying evidence that should have been preserved.