Subcontractor Prevailed, With Dismissal of Protective Cross-Complaint Being Inconsequential.
The Second District, Division 6, in Toro Enterprises v. Pavement Recycling, Case No. B234627 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 9, 2012) (unpublished), reversed a trial court’s denial of an attorney’s fees award to a subcontractor which defensed general contractor’s cross-complaint against it on summary judgment, after which sub dismissed its protective cross-complaint.
The reversal of the fee denial hinged on the breadth of a fees clause in the subcontract, which covered “any dispute resolution between the parties . . . arising under or relating to the terms and conditions of the Subcontract.” The word “dispute resolution” was broad, not being limited just to arbitrations. It made no difference that sub did not win anything on its cross-complaint, because sub prevailed by “defensing” general’s cross-complaint against sub.