In ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 825, there was a dispute over whether New York law applied to an attorney fee dispute. In an opinion authored by Presiding Justice Vaino Spencer, the Court of Appeal specifically declined to decide whether New York law contravened California public policy embodied in Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (a). (Id. at p. 837.) The Berglass opinion explained that the facts before the court demonstrated New York had a substantial relationship with parties and the subject matter of the contract. Moreover, the Berglass opinion distinguished Grove Properties, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at page 222 where, as noted, the parties negotiated the contract in California and New York. But in Grove Properties, the contract was entered into in California. (Berglass, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 838, Grove Properties, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 222.) In Berglass, there was no evidence of where the contract was executed or negotiated. (Berglass, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 838.) The only California contact in Berglass was that the defendant was a California resident.