Order: NANCY CALLAHAN VS. ROD GOYA et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                OMULADUIOUUNN -

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet.
Jul-08-2010 2:00 pm

Case Number: CGC-08-472530
Filing Date: Jul-08-2010 1:59
Juke Box: 001 Image: 02903919
DECISION OF THE COURT AND ORDER, FILED

NANCY CALLAHAN VS. ROD GOYA et al

001002903919

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.‘SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO-UNLIMITED:CIVIL

JURISDICTION

NANCY CALLAHAN, No CGC -08-472530

Plaintiff,

Decision of the Court and

vs. ORDER
ROD GOYA; CARMEL
MISSION PARTNERSHIP;AKA
HEATHER GLEN COURT,

Defendants.

For the reasons set forth below the court finds that the Defendants
are the prevailing party under both Civil Code Section 1717 and 1032.

Civil Code Section 1717 states that the “party prevailing on the
contract is the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on
the contract”. Clearly in this case the Plaintiff did not recover any
relief in this action. Section 1717 also provides that the court “may
determine that there is no prevailing party on the contract for the
purpose of this section”. Hsu v. Abbara 9 Cal.4* (1995) sets out what a
court must consider before it can determine that there is no
prevailing party. ‘

The Hsu court in reconciling the apparent internal conflict within
section 1717 looked at several cases (Kytsy v. Goodwin (1980) 102 Cal.
App3d 762, Nasser v. Superior Court (1984) 156 Cal.App3d 52) wherethe Plaintiff sought a variety of relief and prevailed but recovered
jess than what they had sought, a smaller easement in one case, an
extension of the lease but with greater rent in the other. The court
stated “When courts decide there is no prevailing party for the most
part these are cases in which opposing litigants could each
legitimately claim success in the litigation”. The court went on,
”[tlypically a determination of no prevailing party, results when both
parties seek relief but neither prevails, or when the ostensibly
prevailing party receives only a part of the relief sought”. In this case
Plaintiff Callahan received no relief at all.

By contrast when the results of the litigation on the contract claims
are not mixed, then the trial court has no discretion. The court must ,
and in this case did, compare the relief awarded on the contract
claims, Plaintiff's litigation objectives as disclosed by the pleadings,
trial briefs, opening statements and arguments and evidence at trial.
The Hsu court stated that “the prevailing party determination is to be
made only upon final resolution of the contract claims and only by a
comparison of the extent to which each party has succeeded and
failed to succeed in its contention.” In this case the Plaintiff was
primarily seeking monetary damages. Defendant was seeking to pay
no monetary damages. Clearly the Defendant prevailed. When one
party obtains a simple unqualified win on the contract claim
presented, the trial court may not invoke equitable considerations
unrelated to the litigation success. Hsu v. Abbara 9 Cal.4® (1995)

Civil Code Section 1032 (a) (4) provides that the prevailing party is
the one “with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in’‘whose favor a
dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor
defendant obtains any relief and a defendant as against those
plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.” At
issue here is “with a net monetary recovery”. The case law is
consistent in that damages are part of the cause of action. Without
damages, one does not get to the issue of including attorney fees as ayt

recovery. In this case the jury found “zero” damages. Thus as in
Childers v. Edwards (1996) 48 Cal. App 4" , 1549 it appears that the
plaintiff failed to prove damages or to obtain any other relief.
“Winning on liability but failing to prove any damages does not
result in any benefit to a plaintiff. Proving liability proves only an
element of a cause of action, not the cause of action itself.” (Id.)

Again in examining the trial goals in this case, the Plaintiff in
main was seeking to be compensated for her alleged losses. She was
seeking monetary damages. She obtained none in this litigation.
Defendants’ clear and undisputed trial goal was to get a decision
awarding no damages. Thus the Defendants are the prevailing
parties in this action.

ORDER. _ Based on the above the court finds that the Defendants are
the prevailing party and orders the Defendants to submit a proposed
judgment.

Dated: July 7, 2010

senin, Judge Superior Court.

aCase Number: GCG-08-472530

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

(CCP 1013a (4) )

I, Kevin Lee, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, certify
that I am not a party to the within action.
On July 8, 2010, I served the attached Decision of the Court and Order by placing a copy

thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows:

Kathleen Clack , L. Jay Pederson, Esquire

5200 North Palm #308 601 California Street - 16th Floor
Fresno, California 93704 San Francisco, Calif. 94108

(559) 241-7229 (415) 981-5411
clackklaw@sbeglobal.net jpedersen@bledsoelaw.com
Mark Schallert Joshua Rosen, Esquire

1233 West Shaw Avenue, Suite #106 601 California Street — 16th Floor
Fresno, California 93711 San Francisco, Calif. 94108

(559) 227-2600 (415) 981-5411
schallert@ddmslaw.com jrosen@bledsoelaw.com

Case Number 472530 — Callahan Versus Goya
This Document was printed on 7/8/2010 at 2:09:31 PM
Page 1 of 2and, I then placed the sealed envelopes in the outgoing mail at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco,

“|| CA. 94102 on the date indicated above for collection, attachment of required prepaid postage, and

mailing on that date following standard court practices.
Dated:

CLERK OF COURT

By:

Kev Lee, Deputy Clerk

Case Number 472530 — Callahan Versus Goya
This Document was printed on 7/8/2010 at 2:09:31 PM
Page 2 of 2