California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Norris v. Herrera, F056374 (Cal. App. 8/27/2009), F056374. (Cal. App. 2009):
The trial court issued an eight-page written order denying the request for fees. It relied on Civil Code section 1717. Subdivision (a) of this section provides for the enforcement of contractual attorneys' fees clauses by prevailing parties, but subdivision (b)(2) makes an exception for voluntarily dismissed cases: "Where an action has been voluntarily dismissed or dismissed pursuant to a settlement of the case, there shall be no prevailing party for purposes of this section." The court acknowledged that Santisas v. Goodin, supra, 17 Cal.4th at page 617, held that the Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(2), exception does not apply if the action is not an action on the contract and the fee clause is broad enough to cover noncontract claims. In that situation, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 authorizesand Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(2), does not barenforcement of the parties' fee-shifting agreement. The court concluded, however, that all the causes of action in the complaint were based on the contract and that the action was an action on the contract, so Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(2), did bar a fee award. The tenants filed this appeal.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.