In Coltrain v. Shewalter (1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 94 77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 600, the Court held, in the context of a SLAPP suit (strategic lawsuit against public participation), that the trial court has the discretion to determine which party prevailed under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The Court held that "the critical issue is which party realized its objectives in the litigation. Since the defendant's goal is to make the plaintiff go away with its tail between its legs, ordinarily the prevailing party will be the defendant. The plaintiff, however, may try to show it actually dismissed because it had substantially achieved its goals through a settlement or other means, because the defendant was insolvent, or for other reasons unrelated to the probability of success on the merits." ( Coltrain v. Shewalter, supra, 66 Cal. App. 4th 94, 107.) Section 1717, subdivision (b)(1) provides that "the court . . . shall determine who is the party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section, whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract. The court may also determine that there is no party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section." The court adopted the discretionary approach set forth in Heather Farms Homeowners Assn. v. Robinson (1994), Gilbert v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1997), and Damian v. Tamondong (1998) for purposes of awarding attorney fees under the SLAPP statute, concluding that the critical issue in determining which party has prevailed is "which party realized its objectives in the litigation." (Coltrain, at p. 107.) In Coltrain, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint without prejudice before any ruling on the defendants' SLAPP motion. (Coltrain, supra, 66 Cal. App. 4th 94, 100.) Absent a determination of the merits, it may be difficult or impossible to decide which party has prevailed as a practical matter, and the court may appropriately find there is no prevailing party.