Prevailing Party: Where Cross-Complaint Was Dismissed Without Prejudice And Subject To A Tolling Agreement, Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion To Determine There Was No Prevailing Party For A Fee Recovery—As Yet

Costs Prevailing Party Determination Was Not Dispositive As To Fee Prevailing Party Determination.

            Davis v. Philpott Meeks, LP, Case No. B316618 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 17, 2023) (unpublished) was a situation where plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer complaint, generating various cross-complaints for premises liability and indemnity.  Certain cross-claimants dismissed their cross-complaints without prejudice and subject to a one-year statute of limitations tolling agreement.  One of the cross-complainants sought over $300,000 in attorney’s fees under a management agreement, which fees were denied by the lower court based on the tolling agreement.  The appellate court affirmed.  It rejected the argument that because the prevailing cross-claimant was entitled to routine costs, that party was also the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees.  Given that no judgment was entered against the adverse parties based on the tolling agreement, it was no abuse of discretion for the lower court to determine that there was no prevailing party—as of now!