Prevailing Party: Defendants Fighting Back Plaintiff’s Service Lien Claim, But Only Garnering $5,787.81 Out Of Sought-After Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars In A Cross-Complaint, Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Request

Trial and Appellate Courts Found Neither Side Was A Prevailing Party, With Defense Request For $147,932.50 In Fees Denied.

            Whenever a trial judge decides, in a post-trial fee hearing, that the result was a “tie” (or close thereto) as far as whether a fee claimant was a prevailing party in a lawsuit with mixed contract and tort claims, such a decision generally is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. (Civ. Code, § 1717(b)(1); Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4^th 863, 871 (1995) [our Leading Case No. 2].) The trial judge in the next case found that neither side prevailed, and the appellate court agreed with that analysis.

            In Martin Automotive Group v. Horton, Case No. B281963 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 12, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff brought an action to foreclose on a lien on a Cadillac owned by defendants, which prompted them in turn to file a cross-complaint for breach of a car service contract and for the tort of conversion. Defendants, as cross-complainants, were seeking hundreds of thousands in compensatory damages plus punitive damages (the trial court dismissed the punitive damages prayer). After a jury trial, plaintiff lost on its contract claim, while defendants/cross-complainants lost on their contract claim but won $5,787.81 on the conversion claim. Both sides moved for attorney’s fees as the prevailing parties, with defendants/cross-complainants requesting $147,932.50 based on a fees clause in the car service contract (unilateral in favor of plaintiff, but reciprocal by operation of Civil Code section 1717). The trial judge found no one prevailed, with only defendants/cross-complainants appealing the fee denial.

            The appellate court affirmed.

          It found that the trial court was correct in determining, on the contract claims, that the litigation was a “tie” such that no one prevailed—sustaining the trial judge’s discretionary ruling under the abuse of discretion standard. Undaunted, defendants/cross-complainants argued that the fees clause was broad enough to encompass the “win” on the conversion claim, but the appellate court found there was another ground to affirm the fee denial, namely, they did not prevail and achieve their litigation objectives by winning only a small portion of their damages request and only an award that was half of what the car was even worth. (Nasser v. Superior Court, 156 Cal.App.3d 52, 60 (1984); Kytasty v. Godwin, 102 Cal.App.3d 762, 774 (1980).)