FEHA And CCP § 1033(a): The California Supreme Court Has Spoken—Trial Courts Have Discretion To Deny Or Dramatically Reduce Fee Awards Where FEHA Judgment In Superior Court Was Under the $25,000 Jurisdictional Limit

 

No Abuse of Discretion in Denying Fees Altogether Where Plaintiff Awarded $11,500 But Requested $870,935.50 In Fees.

     In Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. S162313 (Cal.Sup.Ct. Jan. 14, 2010) (certified for publication), our state supreme court faced the collision of two statutory schemes: the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which encourages fee shifting for successful plaintiffs, and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033(a), which allows the court discretion in awarding fees and costs where the prevailing party plaintiff recovers a judgment that could have been rendered in a limited civil case (under $25,000 in amount).

     It resolved the collision in favor of section 1033(a), holding that trial courts still have discretion to deny or reduce a fee request in a FEHA case where plaintiff's success is minimal and a grossly inflated fee request is involved. Under the circumstances in Chavez, the lower court did not abuse its discretion by denying a $870,935.50 fee request where plaintiff recovered damages of $11,500.

     The Court did caution that lower courts must give due consideration to the pro-plaintiff considerations governing FEHA fee requests, but certainly could consider such factors as plaintiff's success in deciding that the requests were too exorbitant or not warranted at all.

     Justice Kennard was the author of Chavez on behalf of a 7-0 court.

     Below:  King Pyrrhus.