Dismissal Of Contractual Claims Barred Fee Recovery Under Santisas.
Landlord filed a suit against former tenants, after they vacated the property, for breach of contract, negligence and waste, with landlord dismissing the action without prejudice ten months later. Tenant then moved for, and obtained, $26,671 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 based on a fees clause which stated that “[i]n any action or legal proceeding to enforce any part of this Agreement [the lease], the prevailing party . . . shall recover reasonable attorneys fees and court costs.”
Landlord did well to appeal in Smith v. Calbert, Case No. A140558 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 25, 2015) (unpublished).
The problem here, leading to a reversal, was that the fees clause was narrow, limited to contract claims in line with prior case law interpreting the language as only relating to contractual claims. (E.g., Casella v. Southwest Dealer Services, Inc., 157 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1160 (2007); Exxess Electronixx v. Heger Realty Corp., 64 Cal.App.4th 698, 702 (1998); Loube v. Loube, 64 Cal.App.4th 421, 429 (1998).) Given that pretrial dismissal of contractual claims will not give rise to fees under Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) [one of our Leading Cases], there was no basis for the fee award.
However, Landlord’s voluntarily dismissal did do in his effort to get his own attorney’s fees on appeal.