4
B. The Motion for Order Allowing Costs of Enforcing the
Judgment
On May 20, 2022 Nash and O’Connor filed a motion for an
order allowing their costs of enforcing the judgment pursuant to
sections 685.040 and 685.080 (cost motion). They argued Aprea
had failed to satisfy the judgment, refused reasonable settlement
offers, and filed unsuccessful motions to vacate the judgment,
causing them “to undertake substantial post-judgment efforts in
enforcing the judgment and collecting the amount owed.”
(Capitalization omitted.) The cost motion listed several cost
items recoverable under the Enforcement of Judgments Law
(EJL; § 680.010 et seq.), including fees related to the issuance
and recording of the abstract of judgment, issuance of a writ of
execution, notice of a judgment lien, and filing fees and expenses,
totaling less than $500. The motion also sought postjudgment
interest of $3,534.
The lion’s share of the requested costs was for $58,068 in
attorneys’ fees that had been or were expected to be incurred in
postjudgment litigation. Nash and O’Connor argued the fees
were allowable as costs under section 685.040 because the default
judgment included an award of attorneys’ fees authorized by the
lease, but the $1,000 cap on fees in the lease did not limit the
award because the judgment extinguished the lease. The motion
utilized a lodestar analysis, multiplying the attorneys’ rates by
the hours the attorneys claimed had been expended to enforce the
judgment.3