In Fact, Because He Prevailed, Plaintiff Was Entitled To Fees Against One Set Of Defendants, But Not A Nonsignatory Because He Only Brought Tort Claims.
Appeals, although the odds are against them, can sometimes result in a reversal of fortune. That did occur in Moses v. Rok Drinks, Ltd., Case No. B339392 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 23, 2026) (unpublished) because plaintiff did prevail on tort claims against contract signatories where a broad fee clause was involved and did not prevail on tort claims against a nonsignatory (but the absence of a contract claim against the nonsignatory factored big).
In this case, plaintiff brought both contract and tort claims against a first group of defendants, signatories to an MOU with a broad fees clause. He prevailed on his tort claims to the tune of $587,300, but lost his contract claim against these defendants. Plaintiff later added a contractual nonsignatory defendant just on the tort claims, losing to the nonsignatory. The lower court granted all defendants attorney’s fees based on Civil Code section 1717, further denying plaintiff’s request for fees against all defendants.
The adverse awards went away on appeal with respect to plaintiff as a matter of law, with plaintiff entitled to a fee award against the contractual MOU signatory defendants.
Based on the broad fee clause, plaintiff’s win against the first set of defendants on tort claims was sufficient, because broad “any dispute” language in the fees clause embraced the tort claims. (GoTek Energy, Inc. v. SoCal IP Law Grroup, LLP, 3 Cal.5th 1240, 1249 (2016).) Plaintiff won most of his claims and received a monetary net recovery, so he prevailed as against the first group of defendants, the signatories to the MOU. (Maynard v. BTI Group, Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 984, 990, 993-995 (2013).) The fee award to these defendants was reversed, and plaintiff was entitled on remand to seek fees against them. A different matter as to the nonsignatory defendant. Because there was no fees clause between the two sides, it was necessary for the nonsignatory defendant to show there was a contract claim against him. There was not, just tort claims. Even though alter ego allegations were made, they were only hinged to tort claims, meaning that no fee recovery was proper as to that defendant. However, the appellate court rejected that plaintiff prevailed against the nonsignatory, so the dispute for fees ended as to these two parties.