Plaintiffs Dismissed Their Action Only After Achieving Their Main Litigation Objective.
In Champir v. Fairbanks Ranch Assn., Case No. D077384 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 22, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiffs sued homeowners’ association for breach of the CCR’s stemming from association’s decision to install traffic lights at a location not approved by a majority of its voting members. Plaintiffs also asserted causes of action for trespass, nuisance, declaratory relief and injunctive relief. Following the trial court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining the association from construction of the traffic signal, association obtained written consent from a majority of its members to proceed, and the trial court granted association’s request to dissolve the preliminary injunction due to a material change in the facts. Afterward, plaintiffs dismissed their remaining causes of action, and plaintiffs and association filed respective fee motions, each claiming to be the prevailing party under § 5975(c) of the Davis-Stirling Act (Civil Code §§ 4000-6150). The trial court determined plaintiffs were the prevailing party and awarded them $112,340 in attorney fees.
Association appealed – asserting the trial court should have found it to be the prevailing party. The 4/1 DCA found no abuse of discretion and affirmed – concluding substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination that plaintiffs prevailed on a practical level.
The Davis-Stirling Act mandates the award of reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in an action to enforce the governing documents of a common interest agreement, but does not define prevailing party. However, it is well established that “[t]he analysis of who is a prevailing party under the fee-shifting provisions of the Act focuses on who prevailed ‘on a practical level’ by achieving its main litigation objectives.” (Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker, 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 260 (2016), citing Heather Farms Homeowners Assn. v. Robinson, 21 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1574 (1994); Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Assn. v. Terifaj, 33 Cal.4th 73, 94 (2004).) In this case, plaintiff’s main litigation objective was to compel the association to comply with the CC&Rs and obtain majority approval from its members before installing the traffic light – and that is exactly what the association did following issuance of the preliminary injunction. The fact that plaintiffs ultimately dismissed their action, only after achieving their litigation objective, did not deprive them of prevailing party status.