Contract fee motions in California rarely turn on who won. Of 126 rulings under Civil Code § 1717, 100 followed a clean win, and the court found no prevailing party only 7 times. The motions that lost did so on proof, on timing, or because the case was dropped voluntarily.
The number
| What the court decided on fees | Rulings |
|---|---|
| Fees awarded (54 cut from the amount asked) | 92 of 126 |
| Fee motion denied | 27 of 126 |
| Fees not reached | 7 of 126 |
As of October 24, 2026. In 100 of the 126 rulings, the court found the party asking for fees was the prevailing party.
What decides it: why fee motions lost
| Why the fee motion was denied | Rulings |
|---|---|
| The fees or the fee clause weren't proven | 6 of 27 |
| Asked too early, after an interim win | 5 of 27 |
| The case was dismissed voluntarily | 4 of 27 |
| The other side got the greater relief on the contract | 4 of 27 |
| The fee clause didn't cover the claim | 3 of 27 |
| Other reasons | 5 of 27 |
Asking too early is a common trap. One court denied fees after a motion to compel arbitration because "the determination of the party prevailing on the contract under Civil Code section 1717 is properly made at the conclusion of the litigation, not on an interim motion to compel arbitration." (Los Angeles, 24STCV32211, 2026-06-02.)
What the average hides: how the case was dismissed
The statute is blunt: "Where an action has been voluntarily dismissed or dismissed pursuant to a settlement of the case, there shall be no prevailing party for purposes of this section" (Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(2)).
When the plaintiff dropped the case, contract fees were barred in 4 of 4 rulings. "Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(2) therefore bars an award of attorney fees on the contract claims." (Los Angeles, 23STCV14415, 2026-08-10.)
When the court dismissed the case because the plaintiff didn't show up, the defendant got its fees in 3 of 3. "Thus, the court's dismissal was not voluntary, and the Defendants are the prevailing parties in the action." (Los Angeles, 25IWUD01921, 2026-06-01.)
One more wrinkle: the bar covers fees on the contract claim. A broad fee clause can still reach tort claims. After one voluntary dismissal, a defendant recovered fees for the tort claims: "Based on Santisas, Defendants are entitled to attorney’s fees under the contract for the tort causes of action asserted in Plaintiffs’ Complaint." (Orange, 23-01364350, 2026-05-21; see Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599.)
What to do
| If you're seeking fees | If you're opposing fees |
|---|---|
| Wait until the case is over. An interim win, like compelling arbitration, was too early in 5 of the 27 denials. | Check the timing. If the case is still open, say so. |
| Prove the fees: billing records that match the work, and the clause itself. Proof problems sank 6 of the 27 denials. | Test the proof. Missing records and a clause that doesn't reach the claim beat fee motions. |
| If the plaintiff dismissed voluntarily, look at the clause wording. A broad clause may still cover tort claims. | If your client dismissed voluntarily, cite § 1717(b)(2). Contract fees were barred in 4 of 4. |
Method: 126 California superior court tentative rulings that decided a Civil Code § 1717 contract fee or prevailing-party question, as of October 24, 2026. Each ruling was coded for the court's fee decision and, for the 27 denials, the court's stated reason, read in full. Quotes were checked word for word against the rulings. Rulings that decided fees under another statute or a settlement clause without applying § 1717 are not included. These are tentative rulings, not precedent, and these counts are not odds of winning. Nothing here is legal advice.