Is it an abuse of discretion to find that a plaintiff was not successful under a catalyst theory?

Appellants also contend it was an abuse of discretion to find they were not successful under the catalyst theory, which permits the award of fees "even when the litigation does not result in a judicial resolution if the defendant changes its behavior substantially because of, and in the manner sought by, the litigation." (City of Yucaipa, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 521.) To show "success" under this theory, appellants must establish that "(1) the lawsuit was a catalyst motivating the defendants to provide the primary relief sought; (2) that the lawsuit had merit and achieved its catalytic effect by threat of victory, not by dint of nuisance and threat of expense . . .; and (3) that the plaintiffs reasonably attempted to settle the litigation prior to filing the lawsuit." (Tipton-Whittingham v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 34 Cal.4th 604, 608.)