Ducoing Management v. Super. Ct.
Annotate this Case"This writ petition demonstrates the importance of the disposition in an appellate opinion in determining the form of judicial relief, particularly when the disposition reverses a judgment and remands for retrial. The disposition articulates what the trial court should do, with clear and understandable instructions, and whether and how the trial court should exercise its discretion upon remand." The Superior Court of Orange County court issued an opinion on an appeal from two plaintiffs who were both nonsuited at trial. The two plaintiffs were represented by the same counsel and presented a unified theory of recovery. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of nonsuit as to the second plaintiff but reversed the judgment "in all other respects," and remanded the case for a retrial for the first plaintiff. The first plaintiffs’ claims were left intact, holding they properly were pursued in their entirety (the second plaintiff being superfluous for purposes of recovery). The Court awarded no costs on appeal. No party filed a petition for rehearing. The question on rehearing of this matter for the Court of Appeal was whether real parties (defendants below) were automatically entitled to recover all their trial costs as prevailing parties from petitioner (the second plaintiff below) without any further review. If yes, real parties will succeed in recovering very substantial trial costs even though their adversaries yet may achieve all their litigation objectives. The Court of Appeal applied the plain words of the disposition to preclude such an irrational outcome: "[b]ecause we reversed the judgment 'in all other respects,' our disposition reversed not only the judgment of nonsuit as to the first plaintiff, but also that portion of the judgment which awarded costs to real parties. In accordance with our prior notification to the parties, we issue a peremptory writ in the first instance to effectuate the clear meaning of our disposition."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.