CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado
200 Cal. App. 4th 158
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- CDFF Firefighters sued Maldonado and Pittman for fines levied in two separate CDFF proceedings arising from the CDFF constitution and bylaws contract.
- The $22,000 (approx.) fine from the Bywater/June 2003 proceeding was adjudicated in appellant's favor; the $743.0xx fine from the German/November 2003 proceeding remained unresolved at the time of dismissal.
- After six years of litigation, the court held the $22,000 fine was invalid and entered judgment in Maldonado's favor on that claim.
- CDFF dismissed its remaining claim for the $743 fine with prejudice against Maldonado.
- Maldonado sought attorney fees under Civil Code §1717 as the prevailing party on the $22,000 contract claim; the trial court denied based on §1717(b)(2) due to the dismissal of the remaining claim.
- The appellate court reversed, holding that the dismissal of a separate contract cause of action does not bar fees on a separately adjudicated contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntary dismissal of a separate contract claim barrs fees on an adjudicated contract claim. | Maldonado prevailed on the $22,000 claim. | CDFF's dismissal of the $743 claim bars fees under §1717(b)(2). | No; separate contract actions can yield fees if one was adjudicated in plaintiff's favor. |
| Whether two fines constitute separate contract actions for §1717 analysis. | Each fine (two distinct obligations) is a separate action; fees on the $22,000 claim should stand. | All claims under the contract must be considered together; dismissal affects fees. | Two distinct contractual obligations constitute separate actions; adjudicated fees on one remain unaffected by dismissal of the other. |
| Whether §1717(b)(2) applies when an action contains multiple contract causes of action but has a final adjudication on one. | §1717(b)(2) bars only when the entire action is dismissed. | Any voluntary dismissal of remaining claims bars fees. | §1717(b)(2) does not bar fees for the adjudicated contract claim when the action contains separate contract actions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (Cal. Supreme Court 1998) (mutuality of remedy for contractual attorney fees)
- Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (Cal. Supreme Court 1995) (prevailing on contract claim entitles fees when contract would impose fees)
- Frost v. Witter, 132 Cal. 421 (Cal. Supreme Court 1901) (definition of action and cause of action; action is right to enforce obligation)
- Lilienthal & Fowler v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.App.4th 1848 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1993) (treats causes of action as separate when arising from distinct obligations)
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. Supreme Court 1999) (accrual and separateness of causes of action)
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of La Habra, 25 Cal.4th 809 (Cal. Supreme Court 2001) (causes of action accrual and remedies; contract claims context)
- Marina Glencoe, L.P. v. Neue Sentimental Film AG, 168 Cal.App.4th 874 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2008) (no temporal limitation on §1717 fees for contractual claims)
- Rosen v. Robert P. Warmington Co., 201 Cal.App.3d 939 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1988) (voluntary dismissal of entire action bars §1717 fees; distinguishable)
- Gogri v. Jack in the Box Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 255 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2008) (voluntary dismissal of contract claims may preclude §1717 as applicable)