The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CONCIERGE AUCTIONS, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01032-VC
Petitioners,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
v. ATTORNEY’S FEES
ANTHONY J. MARTERIE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 43
Respondents.
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
Civil Code or any other meaning of that term. See Cal. Civ. Code 8 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