Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01032/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01032-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 09:1 U.S. Arbitration Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONCIERGE AUCTIONS, LLC, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

ANTHONY J. MARTERIE, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 19-cv-01032-VC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES

Re: Dkt. No. 43

It may superficially appear that the Marteries were the prevailing parties in this action to 

compel arbitration, because this Court did not award Concierge Auctions any of the relief it 

sought. But the petition filed by Concierge Auctions had merit; the only reason this Court did not 

compel arbitration is that the Sonoma County Superior Court did so first (after this Court delayed 

consideration of the matter to give the superior court a chance to rule). Therefore, with respect to 

the primary relief sought by Concierge Auctions, the Marteries can hardly be said to have 

prevailed. Later, Concierge Auctions asked this Court to enjoin the superior court’s decision to 

stay the arbitration, and this Court declined. But this did not bring the Marteries any closer to 

prevailing party status. There was, again, strength in the legal argument asserted by Concierge 

Auctions that the superior court lacked authority to stay the arbitration. This Court merely denied 

the injunction request as a matter of discretion, mainly because the issue could be considered by 

the California Court of Appeal in a writ action. Considered in this context, it is clear that neither 

side was the “prevailing party” in the action filed in this Court, whether under the California 

Case 3:19-cv-01032-VC Document 47 Filed 12/19/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Civil Code or any other meaning of that term. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717; DisputeSuite.com, LLC 

v. Scoreinc.com, 2 Cal. 5th 968, 977 (2017); Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc., 

206 Cal. App. 4th 515, 544-46 (2012); Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal. 4th 863, 876 (1995); Santisas v. 

Goodin, 17 Cal. 4th 599, 616 (1998). Nor, incidentally, was the decision by Concierge Auctions 

to seek relief in this Court unreasonable from a procedural standpoint given the unusual 

circumstances of this three-party dispute. The Marteries’ motion for attorney’s fees is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2019

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01032-VC Document 47 Filed 12/19/19 Page 2 of 2