Actually "we" are talking about both. There are two issues, the legal issue where she spent money according to his assurance of fidelity and marriage, and the moral issue where the man knows he played this girl to the tune of 30K or so.
She isn't entitled to "pain and suffering" the law in California that Yurt is citing is clear on that, however monetary obligations are different, even more so if they were cohabiting. The reality is she had a reasonable assurance and verbal agreement, even sealed with what is legally called a "conditional gift", that he would then be faithful and fulfill the obligation that he took upon himself by first asking for her agreement, and then by gifting her with a symbol of the agreement.
He then, after she spent a small fortune, decided that his obligations meant nothing. That's fine, but married or not you are going to have to pay your share.
This case is not being tried in CA, but in IL...isn't it? Also, there is a very similar case being tried as well and that one has not been settled yet. Also a woman in Georgia won 150k in 2008.