Absence Of A Settlement Agreement Was Critical, Not To Mention Facts Indicating That Tenants Forced The Dismissal Because Landlords Knew They Might Lose.
In Treybig v. Meza, Case No. 2024-01416924 (Orange County Superior Court, App. Div. Nov. 20, 2025, posted Dec. 12, 2025) (published), tenants contested an unlawful detainer by arguing that landlords unreasonably refused to accept rental payments, with landlord eventually dismissing the action without prejudice after accepting rental payments. Tenants sought routine costs of $2,607.55 as prevailing parties, but the lower court struck them upon landlords’ request under the premise that a settlement was reached.
The Orange County Superior Court Appellate Division reversed as a matter of law.
There was no settlement entered into the record, with the evidence in the motion to strike proceeding showing that tenants disagreed a settlement was reached because they were willing to proceed to trial unless the matter was dismissed in line with landlord accepting tenants’ previously rejected rental payments. Given the lack of substantial evidence to support that a settlement was reached, tenants were the prevailing parties because they, as defendants, obtained a dismissal of the action. DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, 62 Cal.4th 1140, 1145 (2016) was found distinguishable, because there was a written settlement agreement such that it disqualified defendant tenants from being prevailing parties under CCP §§ 1032(a)(4), (b).
Presiding Judge Knill authored the 3-0 opinion.