Plaintiff’s Obtaining A Declaration Of A Limited Duty Of Indemnify And Defense To Two Of Three Underlying Actions Was Eclipsed By Defeat Of Damages Claims And Defendant’s Obtaining Summary Adjudication That The Duty To Indemnity And To Defendant Was Cut Off By A Prior Date For Most Of The Alleged Duties.
We know that an “unqualified win” makes a litigant a prevailing party under Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (1995) [Our Leading Case N. 2].) However, when this situation does not exist, a lower court had considerable discretion to determine what party prevailed, if any, based on a pragmatic assessment of what party has realized its litigation objectives. (Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 622 (1998).) This type of discretionary call was at issue on appeal in Garcia v. Bank of Stockton, Case No. F085536 (5th Dist. May 10, 2024) (unpublished).
There, plaintiffs sought to enforce certain indemnity and duty to defend obligations under agreements with defendant bank. The lower court granted defendant’s summary adjudication motion after determining that some of these obligations expired on a date certain under the agreements. After a bench trial on the remaining issues, the lower court determined that plaintiff had failed to prove damages even though seeking $667,000 from defendant, with the merit determinations affirmed in an earlier appellate opinion. (Along the way, plaintiffs did win a declaration that partial indemnity/duty obligations were at issue, even though the recorded suggest defendant did not really contest it vigorously.). Defendant then moved for contractual prevailing party attorney’s fees, with the lower court awarding some amount although the sum is not mentioned in the second appellate opinion.
The Fifth District affirmed the fee award in plaintiffs’ second appeal. It could no discern no abuse of discretion based on these circumstances: (1) defendant’s victory in neutralizing a significant damages award and in obtaining a pretrial summary adjudication award limiting indemnity/duty to defend obligations were predominant; whereas (2) plaintiffs’ partial indemnity/defend win was a limited one and dwarfed by the “no damages” determination against them.