Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)

Citation: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Parent Document: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2020-09-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4784084/aljabban-v-fontana-indoor-swap-... ↗

Full Text

1,998 chars

43
in the amount of $121,043. The trial court also ordered Aljabban and
Carrasco to pay $14,374.60 in costs.
      In relevant part, Civil Code section 1717 provides, “(a) In any action on
a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and
costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to
one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined
to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party
specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable . . . . [¶]
Reasonable attorney’s fees shall be fixed by the court, and shall be an
element of the costs of suit. . . . [¶] (b)(1) The court, upon notice and motion
by a party, shall determine who is the party prevailing on the contract for
purposes of this section, whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment.
Except as provided in paragraph (2), the party prevailing on the
contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the
contract. The court may also determine that there is no party prevailing on
the contract for purposes of this section.” (Civ. Code, § 1717.)
      Here, the trial court awarded attorney fees and costs to defendants
based on its judgment in favor of defendants on all of the causes of action,
which clearly made defendants the prevailing parties. Because we are
reversing the judgment and directing that judgment be entered in favor of
Aljabban on the breach of contract and conversion causes of action in the
amount of $680.00, we must necessarily reverse the trial court’s attorney fee
and costs award as it relates to Aljabban. (Cutujian v. Benedict Hills Estates
Assn. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1390 [“In view of our reversal of the
judgment, the order awarding attorney fees must also be reversed.”]; Lafferty
v. Wells Fargo Bank (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 545, 551 [“Since we reverse the
judgment, we also reverse the award of attorney fees because [defendant] is

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text