In Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Dintino (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 333 (FDIC), the Court decided a similar issue of entitlement to attorney fees, where the results in litigation were mixed. After the defendant Dintino obtained summary adjudication of the plaintiff Bank's breach of contract cause of action brought against him, the matter went to trial on damages for the Bank on its causes of action against Dintino for unjust enrichment and money lent. The court awarded the Bank unjust enrichment damages in the amount of $ 268,177.61, plus prejudgment interest of $ 147,007.30. The court subsequently denied Dintino's motion for an award of attorney fees incurred in defending against the Bank's breach of contract cause of action. On appeal, the Court held: "In this case, the only contract claim alleged by Bank was its breach of contract cause of action based on Dintino's alleged breach of the Contract/Note. In granting Dintino's motion for summary adjudication on that cause of action based on the section 726 one-action rule, the trial court gave Dintino a simple, unqualified victory on the only contract cause of action. Accordingly, Dintino was entitled to an award of attorney fees incurred in defending against that cause of action pursuant to the Contract/Note's attorney fee provision and Civil Code section 1717. As Dintino asserts, had Bank prevailed on that cause of action, it would have been entitled to an award of its attorney fees as the prevailing party on the contract. Therefore, Dintino, as the prevailing party on the contract, is entitled to the same right to attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717." (FDIC, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at pp. 357-358.) In FDIC, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 333, the Court concluded: "The trial court could not properly consider Bank's success on its noncontract causes of action (e.g., unjust enrichment cause of action) in making its determination of which party, if any, prevailed on the contract cause of action. In so doing, the trial court erred. Accordingly, the trial court erred by denying Dintino's motion for an award of attorney fees incurred in successfully defending against Bank's breach of contract cause of action." (Id. at p. 359.)