$240,731 Fee Award Reversed As A Matter Of Law, Because Not Dispositive Stage Ruling Had Occurred.
“Prevailing party” determinations under Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 617 (1998) [one of our Leading Cases] are especially subject to de novo review given that the facts frequently are undisputed and only legal issues are presented for appellate review. Such was the case in California Bank and Trust v. Meruelo Properties, Inc., Case No. B277691 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 6, 2017) (unpublished).
In this particular case, plaintiff bank in a contractual breach case (of course, with fees clauses) lost two defense motions in limine excluding opinion testimony regarding the relevant market value of property and related appraisal reports relating to a guaranty of completion/performance contract dispute. Plaintiff bank then voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice two days before trial (at the final status conference where the in limine motions were determined), and the other side did not move to vacate the dismissal, but the defense subsequently was awarded $240,731 in contractual attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 by the trial judge.
That award went away on appeal by the losing plaintiff bank.
As the appellate panel viewed the matter, the trial court never found plaintiff’s dismissal to be invalid so as to surmount the Santisas hurdle, which does not allow a contractual award of section 1717 fees except under limited circumstances where there has been a voluntary dismissal. The voluntary dismissal in Meruelo Propertiesl did occur before commencement of trial, even under a liberal reading of that concept. The rulings on the motions in limine were not substantively preclusive (even if pragmatically so, but still dependent on what happened at trial) such that no “dispositive stage” ruling was made so as to trigger Santisas under these particular circumstances. Fee award reversed as a matter of law.