JAJ3

facts sufficient to state a cause of action. The trial court thereafter granted Bren’s motion for attorney fees under Civil Code1 section 1717, finding that JAJ3’s action was on a contract that contained an attorney fees provision. JAJ3 appeals from both the judgment of dismissal and the order granting Bren attorney fees.2 As to the demurrer, JAJ3 contends that the trial court erred in applying the doctrines of judicial estoppel and claim splitting. As to the attorney fees order, JAJ3 contends its action was not “on a contract” within the meaning of section 1717. We conclude that JAJ3 failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action, and the trial court properly granted Bren his attorney fees. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and order granting attorney fees.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code. 2 We have consolidated the appeals for the purposes of oral argument and the opinion.

BACKGROUND

I. The parties3

Bren and his brother-in-law Dan Palmer are members and managers of an entity called BP3, LLC (BP3). BP3 is the majority owner and a manager of a second entity, Portland Lloyd Center Community, LLC (Portland), and JAJ3 is…