Civil Code Section 1717 Justified The Award; No Apportionment Was Warranted Among Claims; And Lower Court Did Not Error In Calculating Fee Recovery From Date The Other Side Began Work On The FAC.
In Jones v. Eaton, Case No. B342733 (2d Dist. Div. 5 Nov. 2, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff named and sued individual defendant in a Third Amended Complaint based on a contractual fees clause in a forbearance agreement. Plaintiff’s case was dismissed for not complying with the 5-year trial deadline based on a motion brought by the individual defendant. The defense moved for $237,845 in fees under Civil Code section 1717, encompassing periods of time even before the TAC was served on individual defendant. The lower court, after examining the billings, decided that individual defendant’s work on the TAC and other tasks began in October 2023 instead, awarding a reduced amount of $99,071.65 in fees.
Plaintiff’s appeal of the fee award was not successful. Because plaintiff would have been entitled to fees had he prevailed against individual defendant (even though defendant was a non-contracting party sued as an agent, partner, joint venturer, and alter ego of contracting parties), that defendant was entitled to fees under section 1717. Individual defendant prevailed because he obtained an unequivocal victory. No apportionment between contract and tort claims was required because they involved common issues. Finally, the lower court’s calculation of the time period for which fees were appropriately awarded was no abuse of discretion, especially given that plaintiff did not propose an alternative date for calculation purposes.