In Circle Star Center Associates, L.P. v. Liberate Technologies (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1203, a commercial tenant stopped paying rent and filed for bankruptcy. The landlord successfully moved to dismiss the bankruptcy case. Then, the landlord sued the tenant for breach of lease, defamation, and conversion and sought attorney fees based upon a provision in the lease. (Circle Star, supra, at pp. 1206-1207.) The trial court sustained the commercial tenant's demurrer to one cause of action and upon the tenant's motion struck the landlord's claim for attorney fees expended in the bankruptcy court, concluding that the fees were expended in litigating primarily federal law issues. The landlord appealed from the judgment challenging the rulings on the demurrer and motion to strike. (Id. at p. 1208.) The Court of Appeal agreed with the landlord's contention that it had a "right to pursue the bankruptcy-related fees in state court as a matter of contract because dismissal of the bankruptcy case restored to the parties their preexisting rights and remedies." (Circle Star, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 1208.) In doing so, the Court of Appeal reasoned: "When a case remains within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, the rule is well settled: A party may not recover attorney fees incurred in litigating purely bankruptcy law issues unless the fees are under a specific provision of the Bankruptcy Code." (Id. at pp. 1208-1209.) However, this principle does not preclude a party from pursuing the fees incurred in obtaining the dismissal of a bankruptcy proceeding in postbankruptcy, state court contract actions. (Id. at p. 1209.) The landlord's case was not against a bankruptcy estate and the commercial tenant's bankruptcy petition had been dismissed. After the bankruptcy was dismissed, the bankruptcy case was undone and the tenant's debts "restored to the status they were in before it filed for bankruptcy . . . ." (Ibid.) The state court contract action could proceed, as the issue was " 'subject to the general laws, unaffected by bankruptcy concepts.'" (Ibid.) Permitting the landlord "to seek contractual attorney fees incurred in securing the dismissal of the commercial tenant's bankruptcy proceeding does not interfere with the uniformity required by federal bankruptcy law or risk conflating federal procedural remedies with state tort lawsuits. Nor does permitting the recovery of contractual attorney fees interfere with the bankruptcy court's control of its proceedings." (Id. at p. 1210.) Circle Star Center also rejected the argument that "the threat of a state court award of contract-based attorney fees incurred in bankruptcy litigation might discourage some from seeking the protection of the bankruptcy court." (Circle Star, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 1210.) The appellate court stated that when fees incidental to a bankruptcy are awarded by a state court following a dismissal of a bankruptcy "or with the bankruptcy court's acquiescence that a lawsuit outside of bankruptcy may proceed . . . they are awarded as a matter of contract to a party who prevails in the state litigation, and they are awarded as an item of costs, not as a penalty." (Ibid.) Thus, "potential liability for contract-based attorney fees does not have the same disincentive specter that tort liability and damages for misuse of bankruptcy processes would have." (Ibid)