Wuxi City Runyuan Keji XiaoE DaiKuan Co Ltd v. Xuewei Xu et al, No. 5:2012cv02274 - Document 51 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES 41 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson . (lc). Modified on 7/30/2013 (lc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wuxi City Runyuan Keji XiaoE DaiKuan Co Ltd v. Xuewei Xu et al Doc. 51 1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WUXI CITY RUNYUAN KEJI ZIAOE DAIKUAN CO. LTD., 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 XUEWEI XU, an individual; HAIRONG CAO, an individual; REPET, INC., a California corporation, Defendants. ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. EDCV 12-02274 DDP (SPx) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES [Dkt. No. 41] 18 19 Presently before the court is Defendants’ Motion for 20 Attorney’s Fees (“Motion”). 21 submissions, the court DENIES the Motion and adopts the following 22 Order. 23 I. Background 24 Having reviewed the parties’ The facts are recited in the court’s Order Granting Motion to 25 Dismiss. 26 with leave to amend because Plaintiff’s complaint failed to 27 adequately plead a RICO predicate act that would allow this court 28 to exercise jurisdiction over the action. (Dkt. No. 38.) Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted Plaintiff did not timely Dockets.Justia.com 1 file an amended complaint, and the action was dismissed without 2 prejudice. Plaintiff then filed a new complaint (Case No. EDCV 13- 3 944 DDP). A motion to dismiss the new action is under submission. 4 II. Legal Standard 5 Federal courts apply state law in determining whether to award 6 attorney’s fees in an action on a contract. 7 F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir. 1997). 8 action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that 9 attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that Ford v. Baroff, 105 Under California law, “in any 10 contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the 11 prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party 12 prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party 13 specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable 14 attorney's fees in addition to other costs. 15 1717(a) (emphasis added). 16 is no party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this 17 section.” Cal. Civ. Code § “The court may also determine that there Id. § 1717(b)(1). 18 The California Supreme Court has held that § 1717 entitles a 19 defendant that has “obtain[ed] a simple, unqualified, victory” to 20 recover attorney’s fees. 21 (1995). 22 III. Discussion 23 Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal. 4th 863, 877 For the sake of argument, the court assumes that the contract 24 in question allows for attorney’s fees to be collected by the 25 prevailing party on the contract claims. 26 this court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice it 27 conveyed “prevailing party” status upon the Defendants given that 28 2 The issue is whether when 1 the Plaintiff has re-filed the complaint and the dismissal focused 2 on the RICO claims. 3 A. Prevailing Party 4 A dismissal without prejudice is not a “simple, unqualified 5 victory” that would entitle a party to attorney’s fees. 6 party may be considered to prevail in the absence of a simple 7 unqualified victory. 8 circumstances, the court compares “the relief awarded on the 9 contract claim or claims with the parties' demands on those same However, a To determine if a party has prevailed in such 10 claims and their litigation objectives as disclosed by the 11 pleadings, trial briefs, opening statements, and similar sources.” 12 Id. at 891. 13 upon final resolution of the contract claims and only by ‘a 14 comparison of the extent to which each party ha[s] succeeded and 15 failed to succeed in its contentions.’” 16 party can be considered a “prevailing party” on a contract claim if 17 the claim is dismissed on procedural grounds as long as the claim 18 is completely resolved in the relevant state. 19 Mgmt., Inc. v. Griffith, 162 Cal. App. 4th 950 (2008)(holding that 20 attorney’s fees were appropriate after a dismissal for lack of 21 personal jurisdiction because the contract claims, although pending 22 in Oklahoma, were completely resolved in California). 23 “The prevailing party determination is to be made only Id. (emphasis added). A Profit Concepts While some procedural victories are sufficient to support the 24 award of attorney’s fees, obtaining an interim victory does not 25 constitute a “final resolution” of contract claims. 26 of Drummond, 149 Cal. App. 4th 46, 49 (2007). 27 party's contract claim against will contestants was dismissed as 28 having been brought in the wrong forum; the contract claim, the 3 In re Estate In Drummond, a 1 court ruled, must instead be brought in an already pending civil 2 action. 3 party’s contract claims; “it merely deflected or forestalled them,” 4 and was not a final resolution. 5 The dismissal of the petition did not defeat the Id. Id. at 53. Here, the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint was not a final 6 resolution of the contract claims. 7 sustained an interim victory that ended as soon as Plaintiff re- 8 filed its claim in this court. 9 contract claim was completely resolved in California allowing for Like Drummond, Defendants Unlike Profit Concepts, in which a 10 the recovery of attorney’s fees, there has been no final resolution 11 of the contract claims in this or any other forum. 12 13 B. Contract Claims Additionally, while a procedural victory is sometimes 14 sufficient to allow for attorney’s fees under 15 must pertain to the contract claims. 16 USA, Inc., C-10-04862 JCS, 2013 WL 1345023(N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013). 17 In Vistan, a plaintiff filed an action in federal court that 18 included both a patent infringement claim and a breach of contract 19 claim. 20 the defendants on the patent claim and declined to exercise pendant 21 jurisdiction over the contract claims. 22 dismissed the case without prejudice for want of federal 23 jurisdiction. 24 because, even though the case was dismissed, the defendants did not 25 prevail on the contract claims; they only “succeeded at moving a 26 determination on the merits [of the contract claims] from one forum 27 to another” Id. at *1. Id. See § 1717, the victory Vistan Corp. v. Fadei, The court granted summary judgment in favor of Id. The court then The court did not award attorney’s fees Id. at *4. 28 4 1 Similarly, in Idea Place Corp. v. Fried, plaintiffs filed a 2 complaint alleging a breach of contract. 390 F. Supp. 2d 903, 904 3 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 4 subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not state a 5 cause of action arising under federal law. 6 Place did not award attorney’s fees, finding that the defendants 7 “were quite obviously not the prevailing party on the contract[]” 8 because the court made no findings on the breach of contract claim. 9 Id. at 905. The court dismissed the action for lack of Id. The court in Idea The court reasoned that a dismissal for lack of 10 jurisdiction “did not foreclose the possibility that Plaintiff 11 could pursue its contract claims in state court,” leaving open 12 “which entity [was] the “prevailing party” on Plaintiff's contract 13 action.” 14 Id. at 905. Here, this court dismissed the case after finding that 15 Plaintiff’s pleading of its RICO claims was deficient. 16 Vistan, in which the court only resolved the infringement claim, 17 this court likewise did not determine which party prevailed on the 18 contract claims. 19 stated a claim under RICO and that the court did not otherwise have 20 jurisdiction over the action. 21 As in The court determined only that Plaintiff had not Thus, the court finds that even if Plaintiff had not re-filed 22 its complaint in this court, Defendants cannot be considered a 23 prevailing party with respect to the Plaintiff’s contract claims, 24 which this court did not address and which Plaintiff could raise in 25 state court. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 1 2 IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Attorney’s Fees 3 is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: July 30, 2013 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
