Opinion ID: 6982540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was Melwani the Prevailing Party under the Attorney’s Fees Provision?

Text: Melwani argues that under a “common sense” approach, his procedural victory meets the “prevailing party” standard. He points out that Anderson hauled him into federal court to compel arbitration, yet she failed to achieve that goal. In fact, Melwani engineered a permanent dismissal of the case under FED. R. CIV. PROC. 19(b). Further federal proceedings are impossible, because Pacific American is an indispensable, non-diverse party. Melwani notes that where a plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment on at least some of her claims, the defendant is ordinarily the “prevailing party.” See generally Anderson v. Gold Seal Vineyards, 81 Wash.2d 863, 505 P.2d 790, 793-94 (1973). Anderson contends that, in order to be a “prevailing party,” a party must win on the merits. She points out that in many of the cases cited by Melwani, the court awarded attorney’s fees only after reaching the merits. See, e.g., Strutz v. McNagny, 558 N.E.2d 1103, 1110 (Ind.App.1990). Anderson also complains that Melwani relies on cases that award attorney’s fees under statutes that are not at issue here. See, e.g., Wong v. Takeuchi, 87 Hawai'i 320, 955 P.2d 593, 1998 WL 257428 at  (1998) (Hawaii statute does not require the prevailing party to obtain a ruling on the merits of the claim.) She notes that courts have construed other statutes to require success on the merits before fees can be awarded. See, e.g., Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) (to obtain attorney’s fees, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 plaintiff must “obtain at least some relief on the merits of his claim.”) Outside the federal civil rights context, most of the cases construing statutory attorney’s fees provisions do not require a “prevailing party” to win on the merits. For instance, in All American Distributing Co. v. Miller Brewing Co., 736 F.2d 530, 533 (9th Cir.1984), we refused to require an adjudication on the merits “[i]n the absence of express language in the [attorney’s fees] statute requiring” it. As Anderson points out, however, a contractual — not a statutory — attorney’s fees provision is at issue here. Thus, the cases construing “prevailing party” in the statutory context are at most persuasive authority. The parties cite a few cases involving contractual attorney’s fees provisions. Most of these cases, however, do not decide whether a party must prevail on the merits of the lawsuit in order to obtain fees. Loman Dev. Co. v. Daytona Hotel and Motel Suppliers, 817 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir.1987), upon which Anderson relies, is typical. Loman contains the following dictum, which Anderson generalizes into a rule of law: “Loman cannot recover attorney’s fees ... until after it prevails on the merits.” Id. at 1537. In fact, the Loman court held that plaintiff could not recover attorney’s fees from certain defendants because he had obtained full satisfaction of his judgment from other defendants. See id. Melwani’s cases are more on point. In Walji v. Candyco, Inc., 57 Wash.App. 284, 787 P.2d 946 (1990), the court awarded contractually-based attorney’s fees after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his suit. It concluded that the defendant had “ ‘prevailed’ in the common sense meaning of the word.” Id. at 948. Other courts have reached the same result in the context of a voluntary dismissal. See, e.g., Century Construction Corp. v. Koss, 559 So.2d 611 (Fla.App.1990). Anderson argues that when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses his case, he implicitly concedes that it lacks merit. She claims that the award of contractual attorney’s fees reflects this concession. In other words, the voluntary dismissal cases effectively involved decisions on the merits. Anderson is mistaken. A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his case for a variety of reasons, and in some situations he may refile. Thus, a voluntary dismissal may be a temporary reprieve rather than an outright victory. The award of contractual attorney’s fees under these circumstances does not necessarily implicate the merits of the underlying lawsuit. Rather, it reflects the fact that the plaintiff has dragged the defendant through a costly and ultimately fruitless exercise. The same rationale is applicable here. This suit was not cognizable in federal court, and Anderson does not now claim that dismissal was inappropriate under FED. R. CIV. PROC. 19(b). Her justifications for suing Melwani individually are irrelevant, because the attorney’s fees provision does not contain a good-faith exception. Melwani permanently defeated this lawsuit and is therefore the prevailing party.