Cal. Civ. Code § 1717

Section 1717 makes contractual attorney-fee provisions reciprocal and protects California litigants from one-sided fee provisions, especially in contracts of adhesion.

Daniel Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Barber-Colman Co., a Delaware Corporation, and B-C Investment Co., an · filed 1993-09-17

Texas law does conflict with a fundamental policy of California. California law requiring mutuality of attorneys' fees provisions reflects a strong public policy, overriding another strong public policy of freedom of contract. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717; Harbor View Hills Community Ass'n. v. Torley, 5 Cal.App.4th 343, 348, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 96 (1992). The policy was enacted to protect California litigants from one-sided fee provisions, particularly in contracts of adhesion. See Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson, 599 P.2d 83, 85 (Cal. 1979). ... Although the sale property was located in California, the residence of the parties is of primary importance for purposes of the reciprocal fee statute. Neither of the parties are residents of California, Texas law was chosen by the parties, and properly applied by the district court.

Section 1717 makes contractual attorney-fee provisions reciprocal and extends provisions limited to particular contract sections to the entire contract unless the specified attorney-representation exception applies.

Prudence Corporation v. Shred-It America, Inc. · filed 2010-02-18(a)

According to Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a), all attorneys’ fees provisions in the contract are made reciprocal between the parties. Also, any fees provisions which are limited to certain sections of the contract must be applied to the entire contract “unless each party was represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution of the contract, and the fact of that representation is specified in the contract.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). The franchise agreement does not specifically note that the parties were represented by counsel. Thus, the provisions that permit SAI to collect attorney's fees in certain instances are made applicable to this suit won by Prudence. The award of fees and costs was therefore proper.

In a contract action, § 1717 makes a unilateral contractual attorney-fee provision reciprocal, but it does not authorize fee recovery for claims outside the provision's unambiguous scope.

In re: Joan Borsten Vidov and Oleg Vidov · filed 2014-07-31(a)

And finally, in contract actions, Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 entitles the prevailing party to recover its fees based on a contractual fees provision even if that provision on its face only entitles the other party to the contract to recover its fees. ... In other words, Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 turns unilateral fees provisions into reciprocal fees provisions by operation of law.

Section 1717(a) makes a unilateral contractual attorney-fee provision reciprocal and permits a prevailing party to recover reasonable fees when the action is on the contract, the contract has a qualifying fee clause, and the specified party would have been entitled to fees had it prevailed.

In Re: Janet N. Wagabaza · filed 2019-08-07(a)

“Three (sometimes four) conditions must be met before fees may be awarded pursuant to § 1717(a). ... And fourth, where the prevailing party is not the party specified in the contract, the party that is specified in the contract would have been entitled to recover his fees had he prevailed. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). ... The Court agrees. The adversary action was “on a contract” because Debtor sought to avoid enforcement of the provisions of the agreement containing the attorney fee provision. ... The Court concludes that Debtor has met all the conditions for application of California Civil Code § 1717(a). Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court’s attorney fee award in favor of Debtor.

Section 1717 makes a unilateral contractual attorney-fee provision reciprocal when the action is on the contract, the contract authorizes fees for enforcement, and the party seeking fees prevailed, provided the opposing party would have been entitled to fees if it had prevailed.

In re: Lisa Marie Ahrens · filed 2016-10-27(a)

In the end, the bankruptcy court concluded that by filing an unsecured proof of claim, Golden 1 initiated an action on the contract and Trustee was the prevailing party. Had Golden 1 prevailed on its deficiency claim against the estate it would have had an entitlement to attorney’s fees; the estate should likewise be able to do so on a reciprocal basis. See Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson, 25 Cal.3d 124, 127–128 (1979). In short, all three conditions for application of Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 were met.

Section 1717 requires unilateral contractual prevailing-party attorney-fee clauses to be treated as bilateral, supporting enforcement of reciprocal fee-shifting clauses.

Tompkins v. 23andme, Inc. · filed 2016-10-13

Indeed, section 1717 of the California Civil Code appears to approve such bilateral prevailing party clauses, since it requires courts to treat all unilateral prevailing party clauses as if they were bilateral clauses.

Section 1717(a) makes a one-sided contractual attorney-fee clause reciprocal and, absent specified counsel representation during negotiation and execution, applies it to the entire contract so the prevailing party may recover reasonable fees.

Holmgren v. Woodside Credit, LLC · filed 2023-05-05(a)

Under § 1717(a), the fee-shifting provision will be deemed to apply to Holmgren’s suit, meaning fee-shifting is available for the benefit of Holmgren and Woodside. ... Therefore, notwithstanding the fee-shifting provision’s textual limitations, it must “be construed as applying to the entire contract.” ... In this situation, the statute’s directive is clear: “the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” In other words, Holmgren and Woodside may allege entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs in their pleadings, and whichever of them turns out to be the “prevailing party” may seek this recovery after that status is established.

Section 1717(a) makes a contractual prevailing-party attorney-fee provision reciprocal and permits recovery from a nonsignatory when that nonsignatory would have been entitled to invoke the provision.

Sharbat v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. · filed 2024-05-09(a)

In this case, the MBA Agreement does not contain a provision disclaiming third party rights, nor is the availability of the attorneys’ fees provision limited to signatories of the contract. See Doc. 18-9. Accordingly, had Plaintiffs prevailed, they would have been able to attempt to invoke § 9.8 and pursue Iovance for attorneys’ fees. See Cargill, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 44–45. And the principle of reciprocity in § 1717 therefore provides that, since Iovance is the prevailing party, it may invoke § 9.8 and pursue Plaintiffs for attorneys’ fees. See Blickman Turkus, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 356.

Section 1717(a) makes a one-sided contractual attorney-fee provision reciprocal, allowing the party who prevails on the contract to recover reasonable fees when the other side would have been entitled to fees.

C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Traffic Tech · filed 2025-10-23(a)

As such, the Court concludes that Mr. Peacock is entitled to his fees under Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). ... “To invoke section 1717 and its reciprocity principles a party must show (1) he or she was sued on a contract containing an attorney fee provision; (2) he or she prevailed on the contract claims; and (3) the opponent would have been entitled to recover attorney fees had the opponent prevailed.” ... Thus, § 1717 applies to Mr. Peacock’s agreement, absent some reason to conclude otherwise.

Section 1717 invalidates a one-way contractual provision allowing the company to recover attorney fees for actions concerning the agreement.

Peters v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. · filed 2024-06-10

Moreover, in a section separate from the arbitration clause itself, the agreement says, “The Company may recover from you its attorneys’ fees and costs relating to any action to enforce, defend and/or prosecute this Agreement.” This one-way attorneys’ fees provision is clearly invalid under California law. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717.

Section 1717(b)(2) bars an award of contractual attorney’s fees when the contract action is dismissed pursuant to a settlement because there is no prevailing party.

Zavecz v. Yield Dynamics, Inc. · filed 2006-05-03(b)(2)

We find that California statutory law, as interpreted by the highest court in that state, bars awards of attorneys’ fees for contractual claims dismissed pursuant to settlements.

Section 1717 treats the party who successfully defends a breach-of-contract claim as the prevailing party entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.

Western Oilfields Supply Compa v. Goodwin · filed 2011-12-14

Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1717, Goodwin is the proper “prevailing party” in this case. Rain for Rent failed to achieve its main goal of litigation, which was to prevail on its breach of contract claim against Goodwin. Rather, Goodwin successfully defended against that claim.

Section 1717(a) entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney’s fees fixed by the court when a contract contains an explicit attorney-fee provision.

Chinivasagam v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC · filed 2012-11-15(a)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Equilon. Where a contract contains an explicit fees provision, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees fixed by the court. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a).

Section 1717(a) entitles the prevailing party in an action on a contract to reasonable attorney's fees when the contract provides for fee recovery.

Bauer v. Atlantis Events, Inc. · filed 2016-03-23(a)

California law provides that the prevailing party in any “action on a contract” is entitled to attorneys’ fees if the contract provides for the recovery of such fees. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). The Agreement provides for attorneys’ fees and all of Appellants’ claims are “action[s] on a contract” because they are premised on the invalidity of the cancellation policy. See Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal. 4th 599, 611 (1998) (“[S]ection 1717 permits [the prevailing] party’s recovery of attorney fees whenever the opposing parties would have been entitled to attorney fees under the contract had they prevailed.”). ... Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in doing so. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a) (“[T]he party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract . . . shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” (emphasis added)).

Section 1717 treats a unilateral prevailing-party attorney-fee clause as bilateral, including in an adhesion contract.

Tompkins v. 23andme, Inc. · filed 2016-08-23

Indeed, section 1717 of the California Civil Code appears to approve such bilateral prevailing party clauses, since it requires courts to treat all unilateral prevailing party clauses as if they were bilateral clauses.

Section 1717(a) permits attorney’s fees only for fees incurred in an action involving a contract claim; it does not authorize fees for a nondischargeability claim based on actual fraud.

Hunter v. Martin DBA Veronica Rose Productions, Inc · filed 2019-07-10(a)

Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a) applies only to attorney’s fees incurred in actions involving a contract claim. Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 830, 951 P.2d 399 (1998). A non-dischargeability claim based on actual fraud is not a contract claim. Redwood Theaters v. Davison (In re Davison), 289 B.R. 716, 724 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003). Hunter is not entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a).

Section 1717 permits an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on a contract-enforcement claim when the contract permits attorney’s fees.

Freshko Produce Services, Inc. v. Write On Marketing · filed 2019-08-13

California law, to the extent it is relevant due to Plaintiff’s assertion of state law contract claims in the complaint, also permits attorneys’ fees to be awarded where permitted by contract to the “prevailing party” on a claim to enforce the contract. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717. The Court therefore finds that Defendants are liable for Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Section 1717(a) permits reasonable attorney’s fees to the party prevailing on a contract when the contract provides for them, but a court may deny fees when the litigation produces a mixed result and neither party sufficiently prevails.

United States of America for the Use and Benefit of: McCullough Plumbing, Inc. v. Halbert Construction Company, Inc. · filed 2019-09-27(a)

Here, both parties argued to the jury that the other breached the Subcontract, and both parties sought damages far in excess of what the jury found them to have suffered. That the jury calculated McCullough’s breach of contract damages as slightly more than Halbert’s damages resulting a net payment to McCullough of less than ten percent of what it asked the jury to award hardly qualifies as a “simple, unqualified win” for McCullough and a clear loss for Halbert. To the contrary, neither party achieved its main litigation objective and neither party prevailed sufficiently to justify an award of attorney fees. The outcome here is the epitome of a “mixed result.” McCullough expressly admits as much in its reply.1 Accordingly, the Court declines to find that McCullough was the prevailing party such that it is entitled to its attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs pursuant to the Subcontract and section 1717.

Section 1717's mutuality principle can treat a fraud claim as an action on a contract when the opposing party would have been entitled to contractual attorney's fees if it prevailed, and the court may find that no party prevailed on the contract.

Pacific Fuel Company, LLC v. Shell Oil Company · filed 2011-02-25(b)(1)

Section 1717’s mutuality principle dictates that Pacific’s fraud claims count as “on a contract” under § 1717 and the court was permitted to award attorneys’ fees to Pacific for its successful claim.

Section 1717 makes the prevailing party eligible for reasonable attorney fees in an action on a contract when the contract provides for attorney fees and costs incurred to enforce it.

Vodonick v. Aktiengesellschaft · filed 2020-10-15

Under Section 1717 of the California Civil Code, “in any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides for an award of attorney fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract[,]. . .” the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717. Vodonick alleges that the vehicle lease agreement between Volkswagen and Vodonick “contained a provision providing that the prevailing party would have his reasonable attorney fees as additional damages.” See Reply (dkt. 26) at 2–3; Amended and Supplemental Complaint (MDL dkt. 7335) ¶ 16. Vodonick argues that because he asserted breach of contract as a cause of action, this litigation is “[an] action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides for an award of attorney fees and costs.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717; Reply (dkt. 26) at 2–3. Although Vodonick did not attach the lease agreement to his complaint or his motion for attorneys’ fees, Volkswagen did not directly dispute that Vodonick’s lease agreement contains an attorneys’ fee provision. See generally Opp’n (MDL dkt. 7678). Thus, California Civil Code Section 1717 provides a basis upon which Vodonick is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees.

Section 1717(a) allows the prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees in an action on a contract with a qualifying fee provision, including a non-signatory who stands in the shoes of a contracting party.

Crescent Associates LLC v. Dror · filed 2021-03-30(a)

Section 1717 provides that in any action on a contract, where a contractual provision provides a right to attorneys’ fees recovery to one party or to the prevailing party, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, whether it is the party specified in the contract or not. ... Section 1717 applies, however, only to actions that contain at least one contract claim. ... The action must be “on the contract” and the party must prevail “on the contract.” ... Generally, absent contractual language providing otherwise, a contract providing for attorneys’ fees to be awarded to a contracting party does not typically apply to a non-signatory party. ... However, a non-signatory party may be entitled to contractual attorneys’ fees for litigation in which “the non-signatory party “stands in the shoes of a party to the contract.” ... Here Plaintiff, as purchaser of the Multiview Properties at a foreclosure sale, stood in the shoes of Klein and was required to litigate with Defendant to enforce the terms of the Klein Agreement in order to obtain removal of the Dror Deeds of Trust. ... Thus, Plaintiff as successor to the prior owners of the Multiview Properties may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in an action on the contract. ... The Court grants Morris’ fees in the amount of $98,369.00 under § 1717 and finds that they are reasonable and necessary costs incurred with respect to the action on the contract.

Section 1717 makes reasonable attorney’s fees and costs available to the prevailing party in a contract action when the contract provides for an award.

Price Simms Holdings LLC v. Candle3, LLC · filed 2021-05-11

Under California law, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs are available to the prevailing party in a contract action if the contract specifically provides for such an award. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717; see also Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A federal court siting in diversity applies the law of the forum state regarding an award of attorney’s fees.”). ... Here, the contract on which plaintiffs brought suit authorizes an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. ... Because plaintiffs are the prevailing party in their contract action against Candle3, both the contract and California law authorize an award of fees. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717.

Section 1717 permits reasonable attorney’s fees in a contract action when the contract specifically provides for fees incurred to enforce the contract, including fees for the prevailing party.

Momentum Commercial Funding, LLC v. Project Storm · filed 2022-05-03

Still, California law specifically provides that “[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract . . . shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717. Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under § 1717 because all three agreements identified above (the Lease, the Security Agreement, and the Guaranty) provide for attorney’s fees connected to collection and enforcement efforts. (ECF Nos. 14.1 at 7, 14.3 ¶ 6.) Reviewing the portions of these agreements cited by plaintiff, the court agrees that the Security Agreement and the Guaranty provide for attorney’s fees as contemplated in § 1717. However, the Lease itself does not “specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party,” as required to trigger an award under § 1717.

Section 1717(a) requires reasonable attorney's fees for the prevailing party in a contract action when the contract provides for fee recovery; the court fixes the amount, generally starting with the lodestar and allowing a justified enhancement.

Griffith v. ISL Development, LLC · filed 2022-06-29(a)

California law requires the court to determine "reasonable attorney's fees" to be awarded to the prevailing party in an action on a contract that provides for attorney's fees. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a) (West, Westlaw through Ch. 16 of 2022 Reg. Sess.) ("In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs."); id. ("Reasonable attorney's fees shall be fixed by the court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit."). "[T]he trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee." ... "Further, \"the fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.\" Id. "The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided."

Section 1717(a) entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney’s fees when a contract provides for fees in an action relating to or arising out of the contract.

Bay Bread, LLC v. Lemonade Restaurant Group, LLC · filed 2023-02-07(a)

Under California law, this provision is enforceable, and so Bay Bread “shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs” as the prevailing party in this action. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a); see also Hjelm v. Prometheus Real Est. Grp., Inc., 3 Cal. App. 5th 1155, 1170 (2016).

Section 1717 entitles the prevailing party in a contract action to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when the contract contains an attorney-fee provision, even if the provision names only one party.

Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Three Brothers Electrical Contractors, Inc. · filed 2023-08-09(a), (b)(1)

Thus, a “prevailing party” for an action on a contract is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs if a contract includes a provision for fees and costs. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717. ... The Court must “determine who is the party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section, whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment,” and the “prevailing party on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” Id. § 1717(b)(1). ... In addition, because the Court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and concluded Plaintiff was entitled to reasonable fees and costs, the Court also finds that for the purposes of § 1717, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action. Thus, Plaintiff may be awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to California Civil Code of Procedure § 1717.

Section 1717 entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney’s fees in an action on a contract when the contract provides for fees, and the court determines who prevailed on the contract.

Riley v. Quantumscape Corp. · filed 2023-08-15(a) (b)(1)

The Court determines whether a party has prevailed on the contract for the purposes of awarding fees. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1). ... Nor does Riley address why such fees should be denied despite California Civil Code § 1717, which entitles a party to reasonable attorney’s fees in any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides for attorneys’ fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court finds that QuantumScape is entitled to these fees.

Section 1717(a) entitles the prevailing party in a contract action to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when the contract provides for fees incurred to enforce it, with the court fixing the reasonable amount as an element of costs.

WINTRUST SPECIALTY FINANCE v. PINNACLE COMMERCIAL CREDIT INC. · filed 2023-12-14(a)

The pertinent provision of California law states: In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs. ... Reasonable attorney's fees shall be fixed by the court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). ... The trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee. ... Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of $167,066.89.

Section 1717(a) entitles the party prevailing on a contract claim to reasonable attorney's fees when the contract provides for fees incurred to enforce it, and limits recovery to fees related to the contract claims.

ZipBy USA LLC v. Parzych · filed 2024-05-03(a)

Under California law, a party that prevails on a contract claim is entitled to reasonable fees where the contract specifically provides for them. ... “Where a cause of action based on the contract providing for attorney’s fees is joined with other causes of action beyond the contract, the prevailing party may recover attorney’s fees under [California Civil Code] section 1717 only as they relate to the contract action.”

Section 1717(a) entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney’s fees in a contract action when the contract provides for fees incurred to enforce the contract.

Williams v. La Perla North America, Inc. · filed 2024-05-03(a)

Under California Civil Code § 1717(a), “[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded . . . to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract . . . shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). Here, the Lease provides the “prevailing party” in “an action to enforce the terms of the lease” is “entitled to recover from the other party the reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with such action.”

Section 1717(a) requires an award of attorney fees in an action on a contract when the contract provides for fees, and section 1717(b)(1) defines the prevailing party as the party who recovered greater relief in the action.

Balboa Capital Corporation v. Okoji Home Visits MHT LLC · filed 2024-07-29(a), (b)(1)

California Civil Code § 1717(a) authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party “[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs.” ... When § 1717(a) applies, the award of fees is mandatory. ... The “prevailing party” is “the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” ... It is settled that a party is entitled to attorneys’ fees under § 1717 “even when the party prevails on grounds the contract is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable or nonexistent, if the other party would have been entitled to attorney[ ] fees had it prevailed.’”

Section 1717(a) makes a contractual attorney-fee provision reciprocal, entitling the party prevailing on the contract to reasonable attorney fees when the contract provides for fees incurred to enforce it.

Ameris Bank v. Soorma Trucking LLC · filed 2025-01-08(a)

California Civil Code § 1717 further provides: In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs. ... Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). The trial court “shall determine who is the party prevailing on the contract” by analyzing which party “recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” Id. § 1717(b). ... As the court noted, the ELA specifically provides that Balboa may recover attorney fees. (ELA ¶ 14.) And the court finds Balboa is the prevailing party because Balboa recovered “a greater relief in the action on the contract,” including the compensatory damages and prejudgment interest described above. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). Therefore, the court concludes Balboa is entitled to attorney fees under California law.

Section 1717(a) applies only when the contract provides for attorney fees in an action on the contract; a broad indemnity clause that does not clearly cover first-party litigation costs does not support a fee award.

American First Finance LLC v. Garcia · filed 2025-02-06(a)

“Before section 1717 comes into play, it is necessary to determine whether the parties entered an agreement for the payment of attorney fees, and if so, the scope of the attorney fee agreement.” ... “There is no basis upon which the Court could conclude that the parties clearly intended for the indemnification clause to provide for attorneys’ fees between the parties. As there is no language in the indemnity provision, or any other part of the RISC, from which the Court can reasonably infer that the parties had a clear desire to include litigation costs between the parties, American First’s motion for attorneys’ fees is denied.”

Section 1717 entitles the prevailing party in an action on a contract containing an attorney-fee provision to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Kensington Apartment Properties, LLC v. Loanvest Ix, Lp · filed 2025-04-25

Under California law, when a contract awards attorneys’ fees, then the prevailing party on any action on that contract “shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees” and other costs. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717. Thus, California law allows Kensington to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Section 1717 entitles the prevailing party in a contract action to reasonable attorney fees when the contract provides for fees to one party or to the prevailing party, and the party recovering greater relief is the prevailing party.

Ameris Bank v. 2 Sons Trucking LLC · filed 2025-05-21(a)

California Civil Code § 1717 further provides: ... The trial court “shall determine who is the party prevailing on the contract” by analyzing which party “recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” Id., § 1717(b). ... And the Court finds Balboa is the prevailing party because Balboa recovered “a greater relief in the action on the contract,” including the compensatory damages and prejudgment interest described above. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). Therefore, the Court concludes Balboa is entitled to attorney fees under California law.

Section 1717 allows a nonsignatory forced to defend a contract action to seek contractual attorney fees, but awards fees only to the party obtaining the greater relief after final resolution of the contract claims.

Legendz Entertainment LLC v. Cam Specialty Lending 1 LTD · filed 2024-10-25(a) (b)(1)

Thus, Crescendo, while not a named party to the Agreement, may nonetheless seek attorneys’ fees according to the fee-shifting provision because Legendz’s action forced Crescendo to defend itself as though it were a party to the Agreement. ... Under California law, the party prevailing on the contract “shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1). However, “[t]he prevailing party determination is to be made only upon final resolution of the contract claims,” and “courts should respect substance rather than form.” ... Accordingly, Crescendo’s win was merely a procedural interim victory, the contract claims are not finally resolved, and Crescendo is not a prevailing party entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Agreement.

Section 1717 treats an action arising from a contract breach and efforts to enforce the contract as an action on a contract eligible for contractual attorney fees.

Greentree Hospitality Group Incorporated v. Mullinix · filed 2023-09-07

This matter is indeed an “action on a contract” under Section 1717 of the California Civil Code because it arose out of Defendant’s breach of the Guaranty and Plaintiff’s efforts to enforce the Guaranty.

Section 1717 does not permit a plaintiff who obtains no recovery to receive prevailing-party attorney fees; prevailing-party status is determined after final resolution of the contract claims.

In re: Leticia Joy Arciniega · filed 2017-12-11

Even so, a prevailing party attorney fee award should not be granted under Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 to a plaintiff who obtains no recovery on any of his claims. ... Thus, there is presently no award of damages to Clark. In the absence of a damages award in his favor, Clark is not the prevailing party for attorneys’ fees purposes. ... Put another way, the prevailing party determination only can be made on final resolution of the contract claims.

Section 1717(a) entitles the party prevailing on a contract claim to reasonable attorney’s fees when the contract provides for fees incurred to enforce it, but a without-prejudice procedural dismissal that leaves refiling possible does not make the defendant the prevailing party.

Faubion v. FCI Lender Services, Inc. · filed 2021-06-30(a)

While the California Supreme Court has recognized that “a defendant might prevail on the contract within the meaning of section 1717 by winning a purely procedural dismissal” if for example “refiling in another forum would be legally barred [. . .] or would be otherwise impossible or impracticable,” DisputeSuite, 2 Cal.5th at 975, this Court specifically dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice. ... Thus, if Plaintiffs were able to resolve their standing issues, they could refile the lawsuit. ... Because the Court never reached the merits of Plaintiffs’ contracts claims, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant were the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees.

Section 1717 allows a prevailing party to recover attorney fees on a claim to enforce a contract when the contract provides for them.

Freshko Produce Services, Inc. v. ILA Products, Inc. · filed 2021-09-03

After reviewing the Credit Application in this action and observing that this pending motion is unopposed, the court concludes that the fee-shifting provision of the Credit Application is sufficient to support plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees. California law also allows for attorneys’ fees to be awarded when permitted by contract to the “prevailing party” on a claim to enforce the contract. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717. The court finds that defendants are liable for plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees and now turns to calculation of the lodestar amount to cross-check the reasonableness of the requested attorneys’ fee award.

Section 1717 authorizes an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party when the contract provides for them.

Dick v. Corman · filed 2022-07-28

California law entitles a prevailing party to recover his costs, including attorneys’ fees if authorized by contract. ... see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 (providing that court shall award attorneys’ fees if authorized by contract); ... Thus, Plaintiff may recover attorneys’ fees and costs.

Section 1717(a) entitles a party prevailing on a contract to reasonable attorney's fees when the contract provides for fees to the prevailing party.

A&C Trade Consultants, Inc. v. Alvarez · filed 2021-10-12(a)

Additionally, as A&C ... is the prevailing party, an award of attorney's fees under the Non-Disclosure Agreement is appropriate as well. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a) (holding, "[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees . . . shall be awarded . . . to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract . . . shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees").

Section 1717(a) entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney fees when a contract provides for fees incurred to enforce it.

Ameris Bank v. M and T Transport LLC · filed 2025-05-29(a)

As the court noted, the EFA specifically provides that Balboa may recover attorney fees. (EFA ¶ 20.) And the Court finds Balboa is the prevailing party because Balboa recovered “a greater relief in the action on the contract,” including the compensatory damages and prejudgment interest described above. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). Therefore, the Court concludes Balboa is entitled to attorney fees under California law.

Section 1717 requires reasonable contractual attorney’s fees to be fixed by the court, which may award fees for all work related to the contract action while it is under that court’s jurisdiction.

HealthTronics, Inc. v. Lisa Laser USA, Inc. and Lisa Laser Products, OHG · filed 2012-08-31

Under California civil code section 1717, “[r]easonable attorney’s fees shall be fixed by the court.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717. To fulfill the legislative purpose of uniform treatment of fee recoveries in contract cases, “the trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee.” PLCM Group v. Drexler, 997 P.2d 511, 518 (Cal. 2000). ... Now that the issue is squarely before us, we reaffirm that Lisa Laser is entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees for work done in Texas related to the Texas suit.

Section 1717(a) makes a unilateral contractual attorney-fee provision reciprocal and permits recovery only when the action is on a contract, the contract has an applicable fee provision, and the claimant prevailed on the contract.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Lane (In Re Lane) · filed 2018-09-19(a)

California Civil Code § 17178 makes reciprocal an otherwise unilateral contractual obligation to pay attorney's fees. ... Three conditions must be met before the statute applies: (1) the action in which the fees are incurred must be an action on a contract; (2) the contract must contain a provision stating that attorney's fees incurred to enforce the contract shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party; and (3) the party seeking fees must be the party who prevailed on the contract. ... An action is "on a contract" when a party seeks to enforce, or avoid enforcement of, the provisions of the contract. ... Even assuming the Lien Avoidance action was an action "on a contract," as determined above, Lane is not the prevailing party. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by awarding Lane his attorney's fees for that action under Cal. Civ. Code § 1717.

Section 1717 authorizes contractual attorney’s fees, but does not require an award when the opposing party does not oppose the claimant’s objection to the claim.

John Donnelly, Jr. v. American Express Bank, Fsb · filed 2019-07-22

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Donnelly’s motion for attorney’s fees under California Civil Code § 1717 given that American Express Bank, FSB’s (“AmEx”) did not oppose Donnelly’s objection to the claim.

Section 1717(a) makes contractual attorney’s-fee provisions reciprocal, allowing the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees and costs when the contract provides for them.

Auctus Fund, LLC v. Sunstock, Inc. · filed 2019-09-23(a)

Per the Auctus Notes, Auctus may recover its attorney’s fees and costs because it received a judgment on the merits that Sunstock failed to pay money it legally owed to Auctus. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a); First Auctus Note § 4.6; Second Auctus Note § 4.6.

Section 1717(a) generally construes a contractual attorney-fee provision as applying to the entire contract, unless both parties were represented by counsel in negotiating and executing the contract and the contract specifies that representation.

C&C Properties, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Company · filed 2019-11-27(a)

That statute states that “[w]here a contract provides for attorney’s fees . . . that provision shall be construed as applying to the entire contract, unless each party was represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution of the contract, and the fact of that representation is specified in the contract.” ... Thus, under California law today, a contract provision confining the award of attorneys’ fees to particular causes of action or theories of recovery is ineffective unless each party was represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution of the contract, and such representation is explicitly set forth in the contract. ... In sum, the court finds that under California Civil Code § 1717 plaintiffs are entitled to the award of attorneys’ fees.

Section 1717(a) requires a party seeking contractual attorney’s fees to show that the contract authorizes the fees, the moving party prevailed, and the fees are reasonable.

Javaheri v. Deutsche Mellon National Asset, LLC · filed 2020-01-09(a)

A party seeking recovery of attorneys’ fees under Section 1717(a) must show that: (1) a contract authorizes such fees; (2) the moving party is the prevailing party; and (3) the fees incurred are reasonable.

Section 1717(a) entitles a prevailing party on a contract to reasonable attorney's fees when the contract provides for fees, and a party incurs fees by becoming liable to pay them even if someone else pays.

In re: Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC · filed 2020-06-19(a)

In Trope, the California Supreme Court considered the "narrow issue" of whether an attorney who chooses to litigate pro se in an action to enforce a contract containing an attorney's fee provision can recover fees under California Civil Code § 1717. 11 Cal. 4th at 280. The court construed the term "incur" as used in the statute to mean generally "become liable" for a fee, i.e., to "become obligated to pay it." ... Here, because all three Defendants were "jointly and severally liable" for payment of Abramson's fee and therefore "liable to pay" it, all three were entitled to an award of his fee, even if Madjlessi was the one Abramson looked to first for payment and Madjlessi footed the bills.

Section 1717(a) makes an attorney’s-fee provision reciprocal for the prevailing party and applies in actions on a contract, construed broadly to include contract-related claims.

Wallace v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2021-04-22(a)

However, this is not true where attorney’s fees are awarded pursuant to California Civil Code § 1717. Section 1717(a) specifies that, where the contract provides that attorney’s fees and costs incurred to enforce the contract “shall be awarded either to one of the parties or the prevailing party, then the [prevailing party] on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). Thus, if the Court had determined Plaintiff was the prevailing party, she would have been entitled to attorneys’ fees even where the relevant provisions arguably apply only to the lender.

Section 1717(a) makes a contractual attorney-fee provision reciprocal and permits the prevailing party to recover fees even when it prevails by showing that the contract is void or unenforceable, including on claims intertwined with the contract claim.

C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Traffic Tech, Inc. · filed 2021-12-07(a)

As to this argument, the Court notes that it did not find the contracts to be illegal. Rather, the Court found those covenants to be void and unenforceable, which is not a barrier to the recovery of attorney’s fees under Section 1717. See Brown Bark III, 219 Cal App. 4th at 819.

When a contract provides that a party is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs, that party is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.

Ascentium Capital LLC v. Littell · filed 2022-02-01

Under California law, Ascentium is also entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 (stating when a contract provides that a party is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs, that the party “shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.”).

When a contract provides for attorney’s fees incurred to enforce it, the party prevailing on the contract is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs.

(PS) Mitchell v. Sun City Lincoln Hills Community Association · filed 2022-11-07(a)

The clear and unambiguous terms of the settlement agreement provide that the prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees. Defendant is the prevailing party. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1032(a)(4) (“‘Prevailing party’ includes… 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.”). As the prevailing party, defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in defense of plaintiffs’ allegations that defendant breached the settlement agreement. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 11; see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a) (“[W]here the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract… shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.”).

Section 1717(a) permits reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in an action on a contract when the contract has a qualifying attorney-fee provision and the claimant prevailed on the contract.

Liberty Asset Management Corporation - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2022-11-14(a)

To obtain fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a), three conditions must be met: First, the action in which the fees are incurred must be an action “on a contract,” a phrase that is liberally construed. Second, the contract must contain a provision stating that attorney’s fees incurred to enforce the contract shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party. And third, the party seeking fees must be the party who “prevail[ed] on the contract,” meaning (with exceptions not relevant here) “the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.”

Section 1717 permits the prevailing party in a contract action to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when the contract specifically provides for recovery of fees and costs incurred to enforce the contract.

Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Three Brothers Electrical Contractors, Inc. · filed 2023-03-20

Under California law, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs are available to the prevailing party of a contract action “where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract,” are recoverable. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717. Section 15 of Plaintiff’s conditions and terms provides that “[i]f a Customer default occurs . . . Customer shall pay all of [Plaintiff’s] costs, including reasonable costs of collection, court costs, attorneys and legal fees, incurred in exercising any of its rights or remedies herein.” (Doc. 1-2 at 2.) Because the Court has determined that the contract is enforceable, the Court concludes Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Section 1717 ensures mutuality for attorney-fee claims under contractual fee provisions; a claim is not “on a contract” when the opposing party would not have been entitled to fees had it prevailed on that claim.

C&C Properties, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Company · filed 2023-04-11(a)

We review the district court’s interpretation of state law de novo, Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231 (1991), and conclude that C&C’s winning trespass claim was not “on a contract,” in the sense required by California law, see Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). The purpose of section 1717 is to ensure mutuality of remedy for attorney fee claims under contractual attorney fee provisions. Santisas v. Goodin, 951 P.2d 399, 406 (Cal. 1998). Even though C&C prevailed on the grounds that the easements were “inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable or nonexistent,” the pipeline companies would not “have been entitled to attorney’s fees had [they] prevailed” on the same claim. See Hsu v. Abbara, 891 P.2d 804, 808 (Cal. 1995). Instead, the jury would have proceeded to consider whether there was a breach of contract claim, and whichever party prevailed on that claim would have obtained fees. Accordingly, we REVERSE the attorneys’ fees award.

Section 1717 limits recovery of attorney’s fees in this context to an action enforcing contractual obligations in a deed of trust.

Tibbetts v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2023-10-12

Under California Civil Code § 1717, Plaintiffs also cannot recover attorney’s fees unless the action is under the contractual obligations set forth in the deed of trust. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717. Because Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim fails, there is no action on the deed of trust and Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney’s fees.

When a contract provides for attorney fees incurred to enforce the contract, the prevailing party on the contract is entitled to reasonable attorney fees.

BMO Bank N.A. v. Cheema · filed 2024-10-01(a)

California Civil Code § 1717 governs attorney fees awards authorized by contract and incurred in litigating claims sounding in contract. ... Under section 1717, when a contract provides for an award of fees “incurred to enforce that contract,” “the party prevailing on the contract ... shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. . . .” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). ... Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney fees.

Section 1717 requires a contractual attorney-fee award to go to the prevailing party and limits the award to reasonable fees, determined using the lodestar method.

KJ-Park, LLC v. Match Group, LLC · filed 2025-01-30(a), (b)(1)

Thus, to recover attorneys’ fees under section 1717, a party must show that the contract authorizes such fees, the party is the prevailing party, and the attorneys’ fees are reasonable.

Section 1717 authorizes a prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees when the action falls within a contractual fee clause, with the award calculated under the lodestar method.

AGK Sierra de Montserrat, L.P. v. Comerica Bank · filed 2025-03-19

Because the performance of the ADR was a term or condition of the PSA, the court also finds that this action brought by plaintiff for breach of the ADR was covered by the attorneys’ fees clause in the PSA. ... It is also undisputed that plaintiff was the prevailing party here within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1717. ... Therefore, California Civil Code § 1717 authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiff in this action.

Section 1717(a) makes a contractual prevailing-party fee award mandatory when a qualifying contract provision exists, and section 1717(b)(1) defines the prevailing party as the party who recovered greater relief in the contract action.

Balboa Capital Corporation v. Okoji Home Visits MHT LLC · filed 2025-05-15(a) (b)(1)

California Civil Code § 1717(a) authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party “[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). Reasonable attorney’s fees incurred to enforce that contract “shall be fixed by the [C]ourt, and shall be an element of the costs of suit.” Id. When § 1717(a) applies, the award of fees is mandatory. See Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors, 49 Cal. 3d 432, 443 (1989). The “prevailing party” is “the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1). California court have construed § 1717 liberally. See, e.g., Reyes v. Beneficial State Bank, 76 Cal. App. 5th 596, 617 (2022). It is settled that a party is entitled to attorneys’ fees under § 1717 “even when the party prevails on grounds the contract is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable or nonexistent, if the other party would have been entitled to attorney[ ] fees had it prevailed.’” Id. (quoting Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863, 870 (1995)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 1717(a) allows a self-represented litigant to recover contractual attorney’s fees when the litigant actually pays or becomes liable for legal representation.

American Heart Technologies, LLC v. Ansari · filed 2025-08-19(a)

Section 1717 provides for the recovery of fees “incurred” to enforce a contract. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). While it is generally true a litigant acting in propria persona cannot be said to “‘incur’” fees under section 1717, see Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal. 4th 274, 280 (1995), a pro se litigant may still recover attorney’s fees when he or she “actually pays or becomes liable to pay for legal representation.” PLCM Grp. v. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1092 (2000) (citing Trope, 11 Cal. 4th at 280). Here, Ansari “incurred” legal fees from various counsel and provided evidence of proof of payment.

Section 1717 entitles the prevailing party in an action involving a contract that awards attorney’s fees to recover reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.

Viljoen · filed 2025-10-28

When a contract awards attorney’s fees to a prevailing party, “the party who is determined to be the [prevailing] party […] shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717. Here, Plaintiff prevailed on its contract claims against Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff can seek fees under the contracts.

Section 1717(a) requires courts to assess the reasonableness of contractually authorized attorney’s fees before awarding them.

BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Billan-Pahal Corporation · filed 2022-05-25(a)

Having determined that plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees, the court must next address whether plaintiff’s purported fees are reasonable. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a).

Section 1717 entitles a party prevailing on a contract with an enforcement fee clause to reasonable attorney’s fees; the court may reduce an excessive hourly rate.

Regions Bank v. Frazier · filed 2023-08-08(a)

Under § 1717, when a contract provides for an award of fees “incurred to enforce that contract,” “the party prevailing on the contract . . . shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees . . . .” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). ... Accordingly, the court will order attorneys’ fees at a reduced rate of $350 per hour.

Section 1717(a) permits recovery of attorney’s fees for enforcing loan agreements that require the borrower to pay the lender’s fees after nonpayment.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Rothenberg · filed 2024-11-20(a)

the FDIC is entitled to its attorney’s fees and costs in connection with its claims enforcing the loan agreements between the parties.

Section 1717 permits recovery of contractual attorney’s fees only in disputes involving contract claims, not tort claims.

In re: James Charles Charalambous · filed 2013-07-03(a)

Therefore, under both California controlling law and BAP authority,9 we must hold that CC § 1717 can only be applied to attorney’s fees disputes based on contract claims. The California Supreme Court has been equally clear that CC § 1717 is inapplicable in actions involving tort claims.

Section 1717 does not authorize prevailing-party contract fees for a trademark-infringement claim that is not a contract claim.

Billfloat Inc. v. Collins Cash Inc. · filed 2024-07-01

BillFloat’s trademark infringement claim was not a contract claim, and thus Section 1717 does not entitle Collins Cash to fees incurred as to that claim.

Section 1717 requires enforcement of contractual attorneys’ fees provisions, subject to the award being reasonable and not rendered inequitable by the circumstances.

Manh v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 2015-02-17

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding contractual attorneys’ fees to the FDIC. California law requires enforcement of contractual attorneys’ fees provisions. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717; see also Franklin Fin., 53 F.3d at 273 (applying similar Oregon law). The parties’ contract in this case provides that the prevailing party in an action involving the leased premises shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Manhs do not dispute that the FDIC was the prevailing party. Nor have they shown that the circumstances here were so inequitable as to render the award of attorneys’ fees to the FDIC unreasonable.

Section 1717(a) makes contractual attorney-fee provisions reciprocal and permits prevailing parties in actions on the contract, including these federal lien-removal actions, to recover fees under the contract.

Krone v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2023-10-17(a)

PHH is not correct – there is such a cause of action and belated reconveyances by PHH in response to the filing of the Complaint make the Plaintiffs “prevailing parties” for purposes of their demands for attorneys’ fees under California Civil Code § 1717. ... The actions qualify as “on the contract” for purposes of California Civil Code § 1717, entitling Plaintiffs to invoke the attorneys’ fee provisions in the underlying notes and deeds of trust.

Section 1717 treats most bankruptcy motions seeking relief to enforce a security interest as actions on a contract and gives a prevailing nonsignatory debtor reciprocal attorney’s fees when the creditor would have been entitled to fees under the loan documents.

In re Giusto · filed 2015-04-21(a), (b)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that most motions for relief from stay that seek relief to enforce a security interest should be construed as an “action on a contract” under California law. ... Therefore, under the language of the loan documents (despite counsel’s argument to the contrary), Green Tree would be entitled to its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in bringing the RFS Motion. As such, Debtor is entitled to recover reciprocal fees under CCC § 1717 for successfully defending Green Tree’s RFS Motion.

Section 1717 makes a unilateral contractual attorney-fee obligation reciprocal and permits recovery only when the fee claimant prevailed in an action on a contract meeting the statute's requirements.

Bos v. Board of Trustees · filed 2016-03-24(a)

We adopt the BAP’s construction of section 1717. ... In light of our precedents, we are persuaded that the action underlying Bos’s fee request—the nondischargeability proceeding that began in bankruptcy court—was not an action “on a contract” within the meaning of section 1717. ... Such litigation is collateral to a contract rather than “on a contract,” and as a consequence Bos may not use section 1717 to recover the fees he incurred in pursuing it.

Section 1717 treats a dispute as an action "on a contract" when it involves defining, interpreting, or enforcing contractual rights, and allows a party who successfully defeats asserted contract rights to qualify as the prevailing party.

In re Relativity Fashion, LLC · filed 2017-03-22

The question of whether an action is “on a contract” is liberally construed by the California courts. ... So long as a dispute “involves” a contract, or “arises out of, is based upon, or relates to an agreement by seeking to define or interpret its terms or to determine or enforce a party’s rights or duties under the agreement,” the dispute is an action “on a contract” for purposes of section 1717. ... In addition, under section 1717 a party “prevails” on a contract claim if the party successfully resists an assertion of contract rights, even if the party does so by arguing “the inapplicability, invalidity, unenforceability, or nonexistence of'the same contract.”

Section 1717 permits attorney’s fees only in an action on a contract, and an objection resolving bankruptcy-law claim priority without enforcing or determining the contract’s enforceability is not such an action.

In re Golden Gate Community Health · filed 2017-09-20

Here, while Claimant asserts a claim arising under a contract, it is not an action “on a contract.” To the contrary, no part of this court’s decision involves enforcement or annulment of the contract. Instead, the contract is relevant only in determining when Claimant’s rights in her severance benefits vested for the purposes of section 507(a)(4). ... Because this objection did not involve a determination of the enforceability of the 2000 Employment Agreement, but was instead an interpretation of governing bankruptcy law regarding priority of claims, California Civil Code section 1717 is inapplicable. The Trustee’s request for reimbursement of fees is accordingly denied.

Section 1717 broadly covers actions on a contract, including related tort claims, and defines the prevailing party as the party recovering greater relief in the contract action.

Linde, LLC v. Valley Protein, LLC · filed 2019-10-03(a), (b)(1)

California Civil Code § 1717 determines the entitlement to an award of attorneys’ fees in an action “on a contract.” As noted already, that provision is interpreted broadly, and provides for an award of attorneys’ fees even where the cause of action is not specifically a claim for breach of contract. ... To be sure, in an action asserting both tort and contract claims, “section 1717 applies only to attorney fees incurred to litigate the contract claims.” ... But where, as here, the litigation involved related contract and tort claims, a court need not attempt to apportion attorneys’ fees according to the particular cause of action. ... Here, and in the absence of any contrary suggestion by defendant and counter-claimant Valley Protein, the court has no difficulty in concluding that the action in its entirety is “on a contract.” ... Thus, because the parties’ 2014 Agreement provides that Valley Protein must reimburse Linde for any attorneys’ fees associated with enforcement of that agreement (Doc. No. 52-2 at 39), California Civil Code § 1717 applies to this case. The court similarly finds that Linde is a “prevailing party” for purposes of § 1717(b). Under that provision, the prevailing party is simply “the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1). ... Thus, Linde is clearly the prevailing party in this litigation.

Section 1717(a) treats reasonable attorney’s fees as costs of suit for the party prevailing on a contract when the contract provides for fees incurred to enforce it.

Vinci v. V.F. Corp. · filed 2019-12-19(a)

Because VF Outdoor’s counterclaims are based, in part, on breach of the Multiparty Guaranty and the Personal Guaranty, which include an attorney’s provision, see Dkt. No. 91-2 at Ex. K-L, the costs on appeal include VF Outdoor’s attorneys’ fees. ... Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a)(“In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or “[r]easonable attorney’s fees … shall be an element of the costs of suit.”).

Section 1717(a) makes a contractual attorney-fee provision reciprocal, but fees are available only when the action is on a contract; that determination turns on the action’s overall gravamen and main thrust.

Point.360 v. Medley Capital Corp. · filed 2021-03-16(a)

An action is “on a contract” for the purposes of Section 1717 if it “‘involves’ an agreement, in the sense that the action (or cause of action) arises out of, is based upon, or relates to an agreement by seeking to define or interpret its terms or to determine or enforce a party’s rights or duties under the agreement . . . .” Orozco v. WPV San Jose, LLC, 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623, 650 (Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc., 149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 440, 449 (Ct. App. 2012)). To determine whether an action is “on a contract,” a court must “look to the gravamen of the overall action” and the “main thrust of the litigation.” Id. at 651 (quoting Pearl, Cal. Attorney Fee Awards § 4.50 (Cont. Ed. Bar, 3d ed. 2018)). ... As an all or nothing claim for attorney’s fees and costs for the entire confirmation proceeding, which is how it was presented, we cannot conclude that the “gravamen of the overall action” and the “main thrust of the [confirmation] litigation” was the dispute about Point.360’s contracts with Medley. Orozco, 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 651.

Section 1717 permits attorney’s fees in an action on a contract when the contract provides for fees incurred to enforce it, and applies broadly to claims arising out of or relating to that contract.

T'bear v. Forman · filed 2021-09-20

The district court did not err in awarding attorney’s fees to defendant Forman because the promissory notes provided for attorney’s fees in actions that encompass the claims and counterclaims brought in this case, and the record demonstrates that the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting the amount of its award. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 (allowing an award of attorney’s fees in an action “on a contract” where the contract specifically provides for attorney’s fees that are incurred to enforce that contract); PLCM Grp., Inc. v. Drexler, 997 P.2d 511, 518-20 (Cal. 2000) (noting a trial court’s “broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee” under § 1717 and discussing the relevant factors); Hjelm v. Prometheus Real Estate Grp., Inc., 208 Cal. Rptr. 3d 394, 404 (Ct. App. 2016) (explaining that California courts interpret “on a contract” broadly, and § 1717 applies if the action “arises out of, is based upon, or relates to” a contract that contains an attorney’s fee provision).

Section 1717 treats a claim as being “on the contract” when it involves, arises from, is based on, or relates to the agreement by seeking to define or enforce contractual rights or duties.

BillFloat Inc. v. Collins Cash Inc. · filed 2023-03-01(a)

The phrase “on the contract” is liberally construed, such that a claim “on a contract” “involves an agreement, arises under/out of, is based on, or relates to the agreement by seeking to define or interpret its terms to determine or enforce a party’s rights or duties.” ... Since the Lanham Act trademark infringement claim does not arise out of or relate to the contract, the fee shifting agreement does not apply to such claim. Nor is such claim “on the contract,” under section 1717. Defendants are entitled to attorneys’ fees incurred for the breach of contract claim, but no more.

Section 1717(a) permits contractual attorney’s fees only when the action is on a contract, the contract contains a qualifying fee provision, and the fee claimant prevailed on the contract; litigation that does not enforce or avoid enforcement of the contract is outside the statute.

Miller v. W Licensing, LLC · filed 2023-05-26(a)

To obtain fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a), three conditions must be met: ... Under California law, “an action is ‘on a contract’ when a party seeks to enforce, or avoid enforcement of, the provisions of the contract.” ... Since W Licensing’s rights to exploit the trademarks were cut off by the Sale Order, the instant litigation does not involve the enforcement of the License Agreement’s terms. Therefore, the litigation does not constitute an action “on a contract” for purposes of Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). Because the litigation falls outside the scope of Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a), it is not necessary for the Court to make a determination regarding the prevailing party, since the prevailing party or parties would not be entitled to attorneys’ fees in any event.

Section 1717 permits recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees when a contract provides for fees in an action on the contract, including an action that relates to or enforces the agreement, if the fee claimant prevails.

(PS) Love v. Tri-Counties Bank · filed 2025-02-10(a)

The requirement that an action be “on the contract” is construed liberally. ... An action is “on a contract” under section 1717 if “the action (or cause of action) ‘involves’ an agreement, in the sense that the action (or cause of action) arises out of, is based upon, or relates to an agreement by seeking to define or interpret its terms or to determine or enforce a party’s rights or duties under the agreement”; and the agreement contains an attorney’s fee provision. ... The Court finds that this case relates to the loan agreement because plaintiff’s case asserted wrongful attempts to collect on the loan when her debt was allegedly forgiven. ... Further, the claims at issue do not need to be specific contractual claims. ... Based on this fee provision, defendant is entitled to seek fees under section 1717.

Section 1717(a) makes a contractual attorney-fee and cost provision reciprocal, but does not make a third-party-claims indemnity provision reciprocal because it does not award fees incurred to enforce the contract.

Intent Brands, Inc. v. Calnutri, Inc. · filed 2025-08-22(a)

California Civil Code § 1717 provides a reciprocal right to attorney’s fees and costs in an action on a contract where the contract confers a right to attorney’s fees and costs to one party but not another. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). Indeed, California courts have found that contractual provisions for indemnity against third-party claims “are not made reciprocal under Civil Code [§] 1717, because they do not provide for an award of attorney’s fees incurred in actions to enforce the contract.” Myers Bldg. Indus., Ltd., 13 Cal. App. 4th at 962–63. ... Here, paragraph 6 of Exhibit 1 to the SAC explicitly states the following: “The Client agrees to indemnify, defend, and protect the Service Provider from and against all lawsuits and costs of every kind pertaining to the Client’s business including reasonable legal fees due to any act or failure to act by the Client based upon the Provided Services.” (ECF No. 29 at 39.) CalNutri is correct that this is a contractual third-party claims indemnity clause (which Plaintiff indeed concedes). (ECF No. 43 at 8.) Accordingly, this provision is not reciprocal.

Section 1717(a) allows a prevailing party to recover fees under a contractual fee provision for a breach claim seeking to enforce that contract.

Premier Floor Care, Inc. v. Albertsons Companies, Inc. · filed 2024-11-20(a)

It is clear that this claim for breach of the 2015 MSA is one that “arises under” the agreement. Even if the Court were to interpret “arising under” narrowly – e.g., to mean a claim that requires interpretation of the 2015 MSA or a claim to enforce the 2015 MSA – that requirement has been met. By claiming breach of the 2015 MSA, Premier is seeking enforcement of it.

Section 1717(a) permits fees for the party determined to have prevailed on the contract; when the judgment is vacated, the fee award may be reconsidered after a new judgment.

Genesis Merchant Partners, LP v. Nery's USA, Inc. · filed 2016-01-15(a)

Fees may be granted to the “party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). Because we vacate the judgment, we also vacate the fee award without prejudice to the district court awarding fees after entry of a new judgment.

Section 1717 applies to contract-related claims, including avoidance claims based on contractual obligations, and permits the court to find that neither side prevailed after comparing the relief each side obtained.

In re Mac-Go Corp. · filed 2015-11-19(a), (b)(2)

For the reasons stated below, California Civil Code § 1717 is the applicable prevailing party doctrine. First, the Trustee’s unsuccessful § 547 claim for relief arising from Mac-Go’s payments on the Mac-Go Loan to FNB was an “action on a contract.” ... The Trustee’s preference action was an action on a contract, and otherwise satisfied the requirements of Civil Code § 1717(a).

For a mixed claim, the prevailing-party determination under § 1717(a) is limited to the contract portion of the claims; consequential damages claims sound in tort.

Hardisty v. Moore · filed 2018-09-07(a)

Hardisty’s claims were, in part, “on a contract” because they sought rescission of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Super 7 Motel Assocs. v. Wang, 16 Cal. App. 4th 541, 549 (1993); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). But Hardisty also sought consequential damages, which sound in tort rather than contract. Id. at 549–50. The district court should have focused solely on the contract portion of the claims to determine the prevailing party under § 1717(a).

Section 1717 permits a court to find that neither party prevailed on a contract by comparing the relief awarded with the parties’ demands and litigation objectives.

Cardinal v. Lupo · filed 2020-04-07(b)(1)

Regardless of whether Cardinals’ misrepresentation claim is treated as falling within the scope of the contractual attorneys’ fees provision, this is not a lopsided case. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that no party is entitled to attorneys’ fees under Civil Code section 1717 based solely on the contract claims.

Section 1717(b)(1) requires the judge to determine the prevailing party on a contract-fee motion, generally identifying as prevailing the party that recovered greater relief, after final resolution of the contract claims.

McEwen v. Benedict · filed 2021-09-30(b)(1)

On a party's noticed motion for attorney's fees, the judge must determine which party is the party prevailing on the contract. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1); Regency Midland Constr., Inc. v Legendary Structures, Inc., 41 CA5th 994, 1000 (2019). The prevailing party for contractual attorney fees award purposes is the party who recovered greater relief in an action “on the contract.” Cal. Civ. Code §1717(b)(1); see Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal. 4th 863 (1995). ... Accordingly, the Court cannot determine a prevailing party as this time as there has not been a final resolution on all the contract claims.

Section 1717(b)(1) requires the court to determine the party prevailing on the contract by comparing contract-related success and permits a finding that neither party prevailed, without considering success on noncontract claims.

In Re Debtor Arciniega · filed 2023-11-28(b)(1)

Notably, under this section, courts must consider only the success or failure as to claims “on the contract.” Id. ... In Hsu, the California Supreme Court held that “in deciding whether there is a ‘party prevailing on the contract” pursuant to § 1717, courts must “compare the relief awarded on the contract claim or claims with the parties’ demands on those same claims and their litigation objectives as disclosed by the pleadings, trial briefs, opening statements, and similar sources.” ... On this basis, the Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court’s conclusion that, for purposes of the § 1717 inquiry, there is no prevailing party in this action and AFFIRMS the conclusion that no award of attorney fees is warranted.

When a contract provides for attorney fees, section 1717 requires reasonable fees for the party prevailing on the contract; if neither side completely prevails, the trial court has discretion to decide who prevailed or whether an award is justified.

AWI Builders, Inc. v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation · filed 2025-04-21(a)

Second, the Court finds that AWI was the prevailing party on the contract claims as to both the 39 Congress Project and the Sonora Project. As discussed above, the determination of “prevailing party” for attorney’s fees based on a contract provision requires determining who is the “prevailing party on the contract,” which in some circumstances is distinct from “the determination of the party prevailing in the overall action.” See Barnhart, 211 Cal. App. 4th at 239. “When a party obtains a simple, unqualified victory by completely prevailing on or defeating all contract claims in the action and the contract contains a provision for attorney fees, section 1717 entitles the successful party to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in prosecution or defense of those claims.” Id. “If neither party achieves a complete victory on all the contract claims, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine which party prevailed on the contract or whether, on balance, neither party prevailed sufficiently to justify an award of attorney fees.” Id.

Under § 1717(b), the prevailing party is the party who recovered greater relief in the contract action; the court may find no prevailing party, and none exists when the action is voluntarily dismissed or dismissed pursuant to settlement.

Sibayan v. De Guzman · filed 2025-06-09(b)

The prevailing party for purposes of § 1717 is determined by the court based on the party who recovered, in the words of § 1717(b), “greater relief” in the action on the contract. The court has discretion to determine there is no party prevailing. In addition, there is no prevailing party where an action is voluntarily dismissed or dismissed pursuant to settlement. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b).

Section 1717(b)(1) defines the prevailing party as the party who recovered greater relief in the action; in mixed-result litigation, the court compares the relief granted with the parties' demands and litigation objectives, not merely the monetary recovery.

Widman v. Keene · filed 2018-01-12(b)(1)

Section 1717 defines “prevailing party” as “the party who recovered a greater relief in the action.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1). This is not necessarily the party who recovered greater monetary relief. Poseidon Dev., Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC, 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 59, 69 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). When the results of the litigation are mixed, we must compare the relief granted with the parties’ demands and litigation objectives. In re Tobacco Cases I, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352, 361 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).

Section 1717(b)(1) makes the court determine who prevailed on the contract for purposes of awarding contractual attorney fees, and an action involving a contract is broadly treated as being “on the contract.”

Simulados Software, Ltd. v. Photon Infotech Private, Ltd. · filed 2020-06-04(b)(1)

The court determines whether a party has prevailed on the contract for the purposes of awarding fees. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1). “The courts liberally construe any action involving a contract as ‘on the contract’ for the purposes of Section 1717.” ... “As long as the action ‘involve[s]’ a contract it is ‘on [the] contact’ within the meaning of section 1717.” ... Therefore, Plaintiff has prevailed on its contract claim and is entitled to attorneys’ fees in accordance with the contract and Section 1717. ... The amount of damages awarded on that claim does not change the fact that Plaintiff prevailed.

Section 1717(b)(1) defines the prevailing party as the party who recovered greater relief in the contract action, and that determination is made only after final resolution of the contract claims.

Louie v. Pier 39 Limited Partnership · filed 2022-11-29(b)(1)

And section 1717 defines “prevailing party” to mean “the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1). Given this definition, a court may only determine which party has prevailed “upon final resolution of the contract claims.” ... Because the state- law claims remain unresolved, there has been no “final resolution,” and it is too soon to determine which party has prevailed under section 1717.

Under § 1717(a), a prevailing party in an action on a contract may recover reasonable attorney’s fees when the contract contains a qualifying attorney-fee provision, but the contractual fee right ends once the judgment is satisfied.

Psm Holding Corp. v. National Farm Financial Corp. · filed 2018-03-07(a)

Under Carnes, any right to attorneys’ fees under § 1717 “is extinguished upon satisfaction of the judgment.”

Section 1717 permits a court to find no prevailing party when both sides achieve only partial success on their contract claims.

Morning Star, LLC v. Canter · filed 2025-09-22(b)(1)

Here, both parties prevailed only partially in their claims against the other. Neither party achieved all its litigation objectives. Our partial reversal on one portion of Canter/Schoen’s counterclaim does not change that conclusion.

Section 1717(b)(1) defines the prevailing party in a contract action as the party that recovered greater relief.

Fissell v. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. · filed 2001-10-17(b)(1)

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Century 21 on Fissell’s claim for an accounting and judgment as a matter of law in favor of Century 21 on Fissell’s remaining claims. Century 21 is the prevailing party under both the contract and California law.

Section 1717 does not allow attorney's fees to a party who did not prevail, even if the action was on a contract.

In re: Richard R. Lane · filed 2018-09-19(a)

Even assuming the Lien Avoidance action was an action "on a contract," as determined above, Lane is not the prevailing party. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by awarding Lane his attorney's fees for that action under Cal. Civ. Code § 1717.

Section 1717(b) treats the party that recovers greater relief on a contract as the prevailing party for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.

SILICON VALLEY BANK v. SAGGI · filed 2021-06-21(b)

For the reasons described throughout the Opinion, Plaintiff is the “party who recovered a greater relief” in this action and thus is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as a matter of law.

Section 1717(b)(1) permits a court to weigh overall litigation success and equitable considerations when deciding which party obtained greater relief on the contract.

G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc. · filed 2023-11-15(b)(1)

Applying equitable considerations to this case, Hsu, 9 Cal.4th at 877, the Court finds that GIS, having achieved “greater relief” than Defendants “in the action on the contracts,” is the prevailing party and therefore entitled to attorney’s fees under Section 1717.

Section 1717(b)(1) permits a court to find no prevailing party on a contract when the parties achieve mixed results.

Milliner v. Mutual Securities, Inc. · filed 2022-02-25(b)(1)

In light of the equivocal results of MSI’s motion to enforce the settlement, the court finds that ... there was no prevailing party on the contract pursuant to section 1717(b)(1).

Section 1717 does not permit holding a nonparty personally liable for attorney fees under a lease’s fee provision, subject to applicable exceptions.

Nicholson v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. · filed 2019-03-20

Under California and Washington law, Nicholson may not be held personally liable for attorneys’ fees under a fee provision in lease agreements to which he was not a party. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717; Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.330; Real Prop. Servs. Corp. v. City of Pasadena, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 536, 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (holding that, generally, “attorney’s fees are awarded only when the . . . lawsuit is between signatories to the contract”); see also 4518 S. 256th, LLC v. Karen L. Gibbon, P.S., 382 P.3d 1, 12 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (noting that "one must be a party to the contract" to be entitled to an award under § 4.84.330). Neither of two exceptions allowing a fee to be awarded to, or payable by, a non-party applies because Nicholson did not stand in the shoes of the limited liability companies that were parties to the leases, and he was not a third-party beneficiary of the leases.

Section 1717(a) authorizes attorney’s fees in an action on a contract, but it does not apply to fraud-based § 523 nondischargeability claims when no breach-of-contract claim remains.

In re: Darin Davis · filed 2019-07-03(a)

The bankruptcy court correctly determined that this provision did not apply. API’s initial complaint in the bankruptcy court included claims for breach of the Subcontract, as well as §§ 523 and 727 claims. If the bankruptcy court had entered judgment on the contract claims, the court might have awarded fees under CCC section 1717. Instead, however, the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay so that the state court could adjudicate the contract claims. The claims that remained in the bankruptcy court – the §§ 523 and 727 claims – were not an “action on a contract.” No one disputes this decision, and we agree with the bankruptcy court.

Section 1717 authorizes attorney-fee recovery only in an action on a contract, not for steps taken during pending litigation.

Gonzalez v. Johnson · filed 2019-01-08(a)

“[A]ction” in this context is “synonymous with ‘suit,’” that is, a judicial proceeding that terminates with the entry of judgment. ... “[S]teps taken during pending litigation are not an ‘action’ within the meaning of section 1717.” ... Here, the bankruptcy case and adversary proceedings were not actions “on” the 2005 Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the bankruptcy and district courts correctly concluded that Defendants-Appellants are not entitled to attorneys’ fees under § 1717.

Section 1717(a) makes a one-sided contractual attorney-fee clause reciprocal, allowing the party prevailing on the contract to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Penn Air Control Inc v. Bilbro Construction Company, Inc. · filed 2019-09-18(a)

Article XXXV is an attorney’s fee provision, and under the mutuality provisions of section 1717(a) of the California Civil Code, Alpha is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Section 1717 ensures mutuality of attorney-fee remedies under contractual attorney-fee provisions, so a claim is not “on a contract” when the opposing party would not have been entitled to fees had it prevailed on that same claim.

C&C Properties, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Company · filed 2023-05-08(a)

The district court erred in granting C&C’s request for attorneys’ fees. We review the district court’s interpretation of state law de novo, Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231 (1991), and conclude that C&C’s winning trespass claim was not “on a contract,” in the sense required by California law, see Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). The purpose of section 1717 is to ensure mutuality of remedy for attorney fee claims under contractual attorney fee provisions. Santisas v. Goodin, 951 P.2d 399, 406 (Cal. 1998). Even though C&C prevailed on the grounds that the easements were “inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable or nonexistent,” the pipeline companies would not “have been entitled to attorney’s fees had [they] prevailed” on the same claim. See Hsu v. Abbara, 891 P.2d 804, 808 (Cal. 1995). Instead, the jury would have proceeded to consider whether there was a breach of contract claim, and whichever party prevailed on that claim would have obtained fees. Accordingly, we REVERSE the attorneys’ fees award.

Section 1717 permits attorney’s fees when the action seeks to enforce or avoid enforcement of a contract, even if the party prevails solely on federal bankruptcy law, and requires the fee claimant to be the party who recovered greater relief on the contract.

Penrod v. Americredit Financial Services · filed 2015-10-01(a) (b)(1)

Under California law, an action is “on a contract” when a party seeks to enforce, or avoid enforcement of, the provisions of the contract. ... The sole issue in the hanging-paragraph litigation was whether this provision of the contract should be enforced according to its terms, or whether its enforceability was limited by bankruptcy law to exclude the negative-equity portion of the loan. ... By prevailing in that litigation, Penrod obtained a ruling that precluded AmeriCredit from fully enforcing the terms of the contract. For that reason, § 1717’s first condition was satisfied as well.

Section 1717(a) makes a contractual attorney-fee obligation reciprocal and allows the prevailing party reasonable fees in an action on a contract when the contract provides for fees to enforce it.

Curtis v. Bank of the West · filed 2022-05-06(a)

Accordingly, interpretation of the agreement was not necessary for Curtis to prevail, and he did not prevail “on a contract” within the common-sense construction of the statute.

Section 1717(a) treats a claim as an action on a contract when it relates to an agreement containing an attorney-fee clause; here, that included a rescission claim involving collateral modified by the agreement with the fee provision.

tBear v. Forman · filed 2020-06-08(a)

California Civil Code § 1717(a) specifically applies to actions “on a contract,” and provides, in pertinent part: ... “California courts liberally construe the term ‘on a contract’ as within section 1717.” ... “As long as the action ‘involves’ a contract it is ‘on the contract’ within the meaning of section 1717.” ... The Court concludes that both the broad fee-shifting provisions and the “collection or enforcement” provisions apply to Defendant’s rescission counterclaim. ... The MOU was therefore inextricably intertwined with the promissory notes because the MOU modified the promissory notes’ terms of collateral and enforcing one document was dependent on the other.

Section 1717 generally treats the party obtaining greater relief on contract claims as prevailing, but permits the trial court to find that neither party prevailed sufficiently to warrant attorney fees when neither achieved complete victory.

Cardinal v. Lupo · filed 2020-06-11(b)(1)

Under section 1717, “[i]f neither party achieves a complete victory on all the contract claims, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine which party prevailed on the contract or whether, on balance, neither party prevailed sufficiently to justify an award of attorney fees.”

Section 1717 permits a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees when an action involves a contract containing a fee provision, and courts construe “on a contract” broadly.

Christofferson v. All Pure Pool Service of Central California, Inc · filed 2020-06-16(a), (b)(1)

California Civil Code Section 1717 allows for the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees by the prevailing party in an action involving a contract, when the contract contains an attorneys’ fees provision. ... “Although Section 1717 limits the court’s ability to enforce an attorney fees clause to ‘any action on the contract,’ California courts liberally construe ‘on a contract’ to extend to any action ‘[a]s long as an action ‘involves’ a contract and one of the parties would be entitled to recover attorney fees under the contract if that party prevails in its lawsuit.’ ” ... Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that this is an action on the contract and recommends that Plaintiffs recovery attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717; In re Baroff, 105 F.3d at 442–43.

Section 1717(b)(1) defines the prevailing party as the party who recovered greater relief on the contract, while allowing the court to find that no party prevailed and deny contractual attorney’s fees.

Pierry, Inc. v. Thirty-One Gifts, LLC · filed 2020-08-25(b)(1)

The relevant California statute defines the prevailing party as “the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1). It also allows the court to “determine that there is no party prevailing on the contract” and that no party is entitled to fees.

Section 1717(b)(1) permits the court to determine that no party prevailed on a contract when the contract claims have not been adjudicated on the merits.

Benton Paiute Economic Development Corporation v. Benton Research & Development · filed 2021-05-18(b)(1)

Nonetheless, in addition to the reasons it declines to retain jurisdiction over this matter, the Court cannot rule on Defendants’ fees motion because there has been no adjudication on the merits and therefore no prevailing party. (See ECF No. 43-2 at 3); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1); DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com, 2 Cal. 5th 968, 976–81, (2017) (upholding denial of defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees because plaintiff’s dismissal was not dispositive of the underlying contractual dispute where same dispute was being litigated in another forum).

Section 1717(b)(1) does not treat a party as prevailing for attorney-fee purposes merely because it prevailed on a motion to compel arbitration within a pending lawsuit; the contract claims must be finally resolved.

AKS Trade Co., LLC v. Americap Direct Corp. · filed 2023-03-31(b)(1)

California Civil Code § 1717 (“§ 1717”) provides that where the parties have contractually obligated themselves to pay attorney’s fees, the “prevailing party” shall be awarded attorney’s fees. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a). ... A court, in its discretion, is also free to determine “that there is no party prevailing on the contract.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1). ... In general, there must be a prevailing party in order to award attorney’s fees. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1). ... Here, the action arises from an ongoing, underlying case that the parties intend to arbitrate. (ECF Nos. 47 at 4; ECF No. 42 at 1.) ... Because there has been no adjudication on the merits of the case, there is no prevailing party and the narrow exception against attorney’s fees after adjudication of a motion to compel arbitration does not apply. (See ECF No. 47 at 4). The Court therefore concludes Defendants’ motion is premature.

Section 1717(b)(2) treats a plaintiff’s abandonment of claims before trial as a voluntary dismissal, leaving no prevailing party entitled to contractual attorney’s fees for those claims.

Spartan Capital Securities, LLC v. Vicinity Motor Corp · filed 2024-05-15(b)(2)

When the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for breach of the implied covenant and for unjust enrichment, it granted Plaintiff leave to amend. ECF No. 22 at 15, 17. Plaintiff declined to do so, thus abandoning those claims. This is considered a voluntary dismissal, and therefore Defendant did not prevail on those claims within the meaning of Section 1717.

Section 1717(a) makes a contractual attorney-fee provision reciprocal: when a contract provides for fees incurred to enforce it, the party prevailing on the contract is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.

JBS Packerland, Inc. v. Phillips Cattle Co., Inc. · filed 2025-02-24(a)

Under California law, “where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” City of Emeryville v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1251, 1267 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a)). ... Here, JBS seeks $31,720.00 in attorneys’ fees following entry of default judgment. (Loewe Decl. ¶ 27.) ... Accordingly, the Court finds the requested fees to be reasonable and awards attorneys’ fees in the amount of $31,720.00.

Section 1717(b)(2) treats voluntary abandonment of a claim as a voluntary dismissal only when the plaintiff clearly, unequivocally, and expressly intends to abandon it.

Gpp, Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc. · filed 2025-01-21(b)(2)

Instead, we hold that, for purposes of § 1717, the voluntary abandonment of a claim may operate as a voluntary dismissal only where it is predicated upon a “clear, unequivocal and express intent to abandon” the claim.

Section 1717(a) authorizes attorney fees in an action on a contract to the prevailing party when the contract provides for an award of fees and costs.

M&T Capital and Leasing Corporation v. Freon Logistics · filed 2025-10-01(a)

California Civil Code § 1717 governs attorney fees awards based on a contract and authorizes an award of attorney fees “in any action on a contract” to “the party prevailing on the contract if the contract provides an award of attorney fees and costs. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a); see also Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc., 206 Cal. App. 4th 515, 523 (2012). Here, Section 15 of the Master Loan Agreement and Paragraphs 7 and 11 of the Equipment Finance Agreements provide for the recovery of attorney fees and costs. Compl. Exhs. A, G. Accordingly, the Court addresses next whether Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Section 1717(a) makes a contractual attorneys’ fee provision reciprocal, so it cannot impose fees on only one side.

Peters v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. · filed 2025-07-10(a)

The Agreement’s fee-shifting provision violates Section 1717(a) of the California Civil Code.

Section 1717(a) does not authorize attorney fees for a fraud nondischargeability action that does not require deciding whether a contract is valid or enforceable.

Asphalt Prof'ls Inc. v. Davis (In re Davis) · filed 2019-01-18(a)

Although Davis is not entitled to attorneys' fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1717, Davis is entitled to attorneys' fees through CCP § 1021.

Section 1717 permits a prevailing party to recover contractual attorneys’ fees in an action to enforce the contract.

Buettner, III v. Residential Funding Corporation · filed 2023-10-17(a)

The actions qualify as “on the contract” for purposes of California Civil Code § 1717, entitling Plaintiffs to invoke the attorneys’ fee provisions in the underlying notes and deeds of trust.

Section 1717(a) entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney’s fees when an action is on a contract that contains an attorney fee provision.

Windy Cove, Inc. v. Circle K Stores, Inc. · filed 2024-02-01(a)

Indeed, this action plainly arose out of and was based upon the parties’ fuel servicing agreement, and both parties sought to determine and/or enforce their rights under the agreement.

Section 1717 does not apply to a consent decree when the federal Clean Water Act preempts its application.

Ecological Rights Foundation v. City of Eureka · filed 2025-10-21

Accordingly, the Court finds that the CWA preempts application of Section 1717 to the consent decree in this action.

Section 1717(b) permits a prevailing party fee award before final judgment, but only after the contract claims are finally resolved.

Tesla, Inc. v. Yatskov · filed 2023-02-08(b)

In addition, Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b) provides that the Court may make a prevailing party ... determination and award fees “whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment,” id., but “only ... upon final resolution of the contract claims.”