Plaintiff Did Achieve What He Wanted, So Reversal of Fortunes—He Prevailed!
The appellate court in Zock v. Esparza, Case No. D062784 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished) reversed as a matter of law a lower court’s grant of fees against a plaintiff who actually achieved his main litigation results. Basically, plaintiff did not dispute the bail bond amount owed, but did dispute that he was subject to an annual renewal fee, with everyone testifying that the fee was waived. Somehow, though, the lower court awarded fees to the bail bond group, with plaintiff appealing with the plea—“hey, I beat the renewal fee, my main objective, so what gives?” The appellate court agreed, finding no reasoned basis to have found plaintiff did not prevail and should be saddled with fees, actually remanding to have the lower court award him prevailing party fees under Civil Code section 1717 for both trial and appellate efforts. (Silver Creek, LLC v. BlackRock Realty Advisors, Inc., 173 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1539-1541 (2009) [discussed in our May 21, 2009 post]; De La Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1296, 1299 (2011) [discussed in our Mar. 30, 2011 post] (reversal of “prevailing party” determination where one particular party did indeed achieve overriding litigation objectives versus ancillary matters).)