One Defendant Was Found To Forfeit All Rights Under The Lease On Summary Adjudication, And The Other Was Not A Lease Signatory.
In Morales v. Wang, Case No. B346779 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 12, 2026) (unpublished), after plaintiffs accepted a defense CCP § 998 offer which was silent on attorney’s fees, plaintiffs moved for $177,667 in contractual attorney’s fees under a lease clause. The lower court denied the fee request, sparking an appeal by both plaintiffs. The 2/2 DCA affirmed. With respect to appellant Juan Morales, a summary adjudication order against him, where he was found to forfeit all rights under the lease, justified why no fees should be awarded. When it came to Melissa Morales, she was not a signatory to the lease so that fees were not warranted (Cargill, Inc. v. Souza, 201 Cal.App.4th 962, 966 (2011)), with Ms. Morales not satisfying the judicial estoppel elements for a contrary result and forfeiting a third-party beneficiary argument because it was not raised at the trial court level.