Champir v. Fairbanks Ranch Assn. CA4/1
66 Cal.App.5th 583
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Champir LLC and homeowners Javaheri and Dehghani sued Fairbanks Ranch Association alleging the Association violated the recorded CC&Rs by relocating and funding a traffic signal at Gate 2 (adjacent to plaintiffs’ home) without the member vote required for capital expenditures over the CC&R threshold.
- Plaintiffs obtained an ex parte TRO and a preliminary injunction stopping construction at Gate 2, the court finding a reasonable probability of success on their breach-of-governing-documents claim.
- After the injunction, the Association obtained written member consent authorizing the project; the court dissolved the preliminary injunction as a material change in facts.
- Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed their claims as moot.
- Both sides moved for attorney fees under Civil Code §5975(c); the trial court found Plaintiffs were the prevailing parties and awarded $112,340 in fees.
- The Association appealed the prevailing-party ruling; the Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting the Association’s arguments that dismissal or lack of trial victory meant it was the prevailing party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who is the "prevailing party" under Civil Code §5975(c)? | Plaintiffs argued they achieved their main objective—forcing compliance with the CC&Rs and obtaining member approval before construction—so they prevailed. | Association argued plaintiffs failed to stop construction, obtained no monetary recovery, and voluntarily dismissed, so Association prevailed. | Court held prevailing-party test is pragmatic; Plaintiffs prevailed on a practical level by securing injunctive relief that compelled member approval, so Plaintiffs were prevailing parties. |
| Does voluntary dismissal without liability automatically make defendant the prevailing party? | Plaintiffs contended dismissal was due to mootness after Association obtained member consent, not a defendant victory. | Association argued dismissal favors defendant under other statutory contexts and shows plaintiffs failed. | Court held voluntary dismissal does not automatically make defendant prevailing; courts look to who achieved litigation objectives. |
| Does plaintiffs’ prayer for relief (seeking to block the light) control characterization of their litigation objective? | Plaintiffs stressed their core objective was enforcement of CC&Rs and preservation of member vote, not permanently preventing the light. | Association emphasized plaintiffs sought to prevent the light, so they failed because light was ultimately permitted. | Court looked to substance over form; plaintiffs’ filings showed their primary aim was to compel CC&R compliance—met by obtaining member vote—so plaintiffs prevailed. |
| Can Association recover fees under contract/§1717 because CC&Rs allow fees to a successful Association? | Plaintiffs argued §1717(b)(2) bars a fee recovery where plaintiff voluntarily dismissed. | Association argued CC&R contractual fee clause and §1717 permit a contractual fee award. | Court held §1717 does not permit recovery here because plaintiff voluntarily dismissed; §1717(b)(2) precludes a prevailing-party fee when action is voluntarily dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hsu v. Abarra, 9 Cal.4th 863 (1995) (trial court obligated to award attorney fees when statutory conditions satisfied and analysis of prevailing party is pragmatic)
- Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Assn. v. Terifaj, 33 Cal.4th 73 (2004) (prevailing-party inquiry asks who achieved main litigation objective on a practical level)
- Heather Farms Homeowners Assn. v. Robinson, 21 Cal.App.4th 1568 (1994) (prevailing-party analysis under Davis‑Stirling focuses on practical success)
- Salehi v. Surfside III Condominium Owners Assn., 200 Cal.App.4th 1146 (2011) (trial court’s prevailing-party finding reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Coltrain v. Shewalter, 66 Cal.App.4th 94 (1998) (voluntary dismissal during pending motion does not automatically entitle defendant to fees; court must determine who realized objectives)
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) (discusses when dismissal affects prevailing-party status for fee awards)