In Vacco Industries, Inc. v. Van Den Berg (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 34, the court refused to apply the tort of another doctrine in a case in which three sets of defendants worked together and "jointly committed the tortious acts of which Vacco complained." The court found that there was nothing about the relationship among the defendants or their conduct that justified singling out one of them as the one whose conduct caused the plaintiff to have to prosecute a legal action against the other two. Furthermore, the court reasoned, "[t]he rule of Prentice was not intended to apply to one of several joint tortfeasors in order to justify additional attorney fee damages. If that were the rule there is no reason why it could not be applied in every multiple tortfeasor case with the plaintiff simply choosing the one with the deepest pocket as the 'Prentice target.' Such a result would be a total emasculation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 in tort cases." (Id. at p. 57.)