Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)

Citation: Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
Parent Document: Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2000-05-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5808516/galan-v-wolfriver-holding-corp/ ↗

Full Text

889 chars

Heather Farms explained: “[T]he premise for th[e] argument, that a litigant who prevails under the cost statute is necessarily the prevailing party *1129for purposes of attorney fees, has been uniformly rejected by the courts of this state. (See McLarand, Vasquez & Partners, Inc. v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1450, 1456 [282 Cal.Rptr. 828] [‘We emphatically reject the contention that the prevailing party for the award of costs under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1032 is necessarily the prevailing party for the award of attorneys’ fees.’].)” (Heather Farms, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1572.) Heather Farms also observed that section 1032, subdivision (a) “only defines ‘ “[prevailing party” ’ as the term is used ‘in [that] section.’ It does not purport to define the term for purposes of other statutes.” (Heather Farms, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1572.)

Other Sections in This Document (26)

Full Text