Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2022-01286955, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Attorney Fees

Defendants Imelda Mendez and Benny Mendez’s Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED.

This motion for attorney’s fees follows the Court’s sustaining Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint without leave to amend, and the subsequent judgment of dismissal. 

Absent a contract or statute, "'[u]nder the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees. This default rule can be modified by contract, statute, or rule." (NS. v. D.M (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1046-1047 (cleaned up).) The Court does not have discretion to award attorneys' fees when no contract or law provides for an award of attorneys' fees. (See Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 275,278; see also Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.)

Defendants have not identified any contract provision or statutory right to attorney’s fees in this action.  Although the Court agrees that the claims in this action should have been filed in the prior Mendez Action (Mendez v. OC Auto Exchange, Orange County Superior Court, Case No 30-2016-00895190-CU-CO-CJC), and Defendants would likely have been entitled to attorney’s fees had Plaintiff done so, Defendants have cited no authority which would allow the Court to award them attorney’s fees in this action. 

Defendants also assert that they could have filed an anti-SLAPP motion in response to Plaintiff filing this action and would have been entitled to attorney’s fees had they prevailed on such motion.  While this may be true, Defendants have not presented the Court with any authority that would permit it to treat the demurrer as if it was an anti-SLAPP motion. 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for attorney fees is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.