FILASER, INC. v. KINESTRAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 3:14-cv-00357-MO. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20141104a48
Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 03, 2014
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge. Both parties agree that the contract in question is to be evaluated under California law. Since there can be no "prevailing party" for a voluntary dismissal under Cal. Civil Code 1717(b)(2), I DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees [49]. There is a split of authority concerning whether a prevailing party determination should be made under 1717(b)(1), when a case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I find the reasoning in Hsu v. Abbara, 891
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge. Both parties agree that the contract in question is to be evaluated under California law. Since there can be no "prevailing party" for a voluntary dismissal under Cal. Civil Code 1717(b)(2), I DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees [49]. There is a split of authority concerning whether a prevailing party determination should be made under 1717(b)(1), when a case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I find the reasoning in Hsu v. Abbara, 891 ..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.
Both parties agree that the contract in question is to be evaluated under California law. Since there can be no "prevailing party" for a voluntary dismissal under Cal. Civil Code § 1717(b)(2), I DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees [49].
There is a split of authority concerning whether a prevailing party determination should be made under § 1717(b)(1), when a case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I find the reasoning in Hsu v. Abbara, 891 P.2d 804, 813 (Cal. 1995), to be persuasive and therefore decline to distinguish the application of Hsu as other courts have done. Until the California Supreme Court resolves this split, I must DENY Defendant's motion for attorney fees [46]. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
