Fact That Plaintiffs Obtained Preliminary Injunction Relief Was Only Interim, Not Determining Which Parties Ultimately Prevailed.
Hamilton v. Van Wert, Case No. F078345 (5th Dist. May 6, 2021) (unpublished) reminds us all that a Civil Code section fee victor and routine costs victor awaits what ultimately happens at the judgment stage, not interim provision relief with respect to determining which parties actually did prevail.
In this one, a dispute over Declaration of Restrictions banning short-term rentals which was somewhat ameliorated through a subsequent local ordinance allowing such rentals, plaintiffs did obtain a preliminary injunction but lost the war—the ultimate judgment was a “clean sweep” in favor of defendants on all causes of action. However, the trial judge denied the defense costs and fee motion requests after determining that the interim success by plaintiffs and some other defense testimony made no side the prevailing party.
The Fifth District reversed. In this one, defendants were the clear winners based on the sweeping defense judgment. Section 1717 does not hinge the “prevailing party” determination to a preliminary tactical victory, but to the ultimate strategic victory at the end of the day. (Estate of Drummond, 149 Cal.App.4th 46, 51 (2007); DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com, 2 Cal.5th 968, 981 (2017) [our Leading Case No. 21—front website page on the upper right hand corner]; Liu v. Moore, 69 Cal.App.4th 745, 755 (1999).) Similarly, defense testimony that they would no longer engage in short-term rentals was not equivalent to the relief ultimately awarded—and that relief was in favor of the defense. Because the defense obtained a “no relief” determination against plaintiffs, they were entitled to routine costs as a mandatory right under CCP § 1032(a)(4).)