Also, Plaintiff Only Obtained a “Mixed” Win Rather Than An “Unqualified” One.
In Chan v. Lo, Case No. B239783 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 9, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained some relief (with the court determining she owed less than the face amount of a promissory note), but still was found to owe note interest to the other side and also did not prevail on a trust deed cancellation claim. The lower court denied her motion for attorney’s fees based on the view she was not the “prevailing party.”
This result was affirmed on appeal for two reasons. First, appellant’s failure to include the answer to the complaint and opposition papers to the fee motion prevented effective appellate review of the fee challenges. Second, on the merits, the trial court could conclude that plaintiff only obtained mixed results in the litigation, not the “simple, unqualified win” necessary for prevailing party status under Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863, 876 (1995) [one of our Leading Cases].