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

1,240 chars

Instead, the trial court had discretion to determine whether Wolfriver was the prevailing party “on a practical level.” (Heather Farms, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1574.) On this record, the trial court acted well within its discretion in finding there was no prevailing party. As indicated, the settlement between plaintiffs and the other defendants did not exonerate Wolfriver. Rather, the trial court found “it appears that plaintiffs made a satisfactory settlement with the other defendants, which included as a condition that plaintiffs dismiss Wolfriver. HQ Further, having settled, plaintiffs made a practical determination that it was not worth pursuing Wolfriver through what would have been a costly trial. fl[] Thus, at the practical level the court concludes that there is no prevailing party. The merits of the dispute against *1130Wolfriver were never resolved. Instead, it appears that Wolfriver ‘waited the plaintiffs out,’ betting that the plaintiffs, having settled with the other defendants, would let Wolfriver go.” Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Wolfriver’s claim it was the prevailing party for purposes of recovering attorney fees under Civil Code section 1942.4.

Other Sections in This Document (26)

Full Text