California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Berard Construction Co. v. Municipal Court, 122 Cal.Rptr. 825, 49 Cal.App.3d 710 (Cal. App. 1975):
[49 Cal.App.3d 717] An application for attorney's fees under section 1717, whether or not they are deemed costs, is thus an appropriate incident of a motion to dismiss on the ground of inconvenient forum. The application is no more inconsistent with the concept of special appearance than is the main motion, which is statutorily deemed not a general appearance. It would, moreover, defeat the purpose of that statutory exemption to hold that defendants may claim statutory rights appurtenant thereto only by surrendering their basic rights thereunder. A motion (under Code Civ.Proc., 170.6) to disqualify the judge assigned to rule upon a motion to quash would likewise constitute a general appearance under a contrary standard, but it was quite properly observed in Loftin v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.3d 577, 579--580, 97 Cal.Rptr. 215, 217:
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.