Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Respondent In Case Where CHROA Petition Was Dismissed And Where There Was Informal Agreement On Future Behavior, Had His Fee/Costs Denial Affirmed On Appeal

$9,193.30 Fee/Costs Award Denied, With Appellate Court Determining Respondent Was Not The Prevailing Party, Was No Abuse Of Discretion.

CCP § 527.6(a) does allow a prevailing party in a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) proceeding to obtain discretionary fees and costs from a trial judge.  The issue usually boils down to who is a “prevailing party,” just the case in Garcia v. Ades, Case No. D085637 (4^th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 28, 2026) (unpublished).

There, respondent in a CHROA proceeding reached an “informal agreement” with petitioner to leave petitioner alone and not attend certain events where petitioner might be present for one year, which resulted in a dismissal of petitioner’s case without prejudice.  Respondent moved for fees and costs of $9,193.30, with the lower court denying the request because the case was not exceptional and the voluntary “settlement” did not establish respondent as the prevailing party.

The 4/1 DCA affirmed.  It did not accept the “exceptional” reasoning by the trial judge as far as section 527.6 fee entitlement.  However, with that said, the focal concern was who prevailed on a practical level, with the trial judge not abusing her discretion in deciding that petitioner did obtain a pragmatic benefit by respondent agreeing to leave him alone in the future.  Simply because the case was dismissed did not automatically make respondent a prevailing party.  (Heather Farms Homeowners Assn. v. Robinson, 21 Cal.App.4^th 1568, 1570, 1574 (1994); Damian v. Tamondong, 65 Cal.App.4^th 1115, 1129-1130 (1998).)