Civil Rights/Costs: Routine Costs, Not Including Attorney’s Fees Or Expert Witness Fees, Can Be Awarded Without Showing Loser’s Case Was Frivolous, Unreasonableness, Or Groundless

 

Fourth District, Division 2 Disagrees With Cummings.

     In the civil rights area, Cummings v. Benco Building Services, 11 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1388 (1992) is a California decision oft-cited for the proposition that both fees and costs cannot be awarded against a losing civil rights plaintiff unless the action is deemed to be frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless in nature.

     The Fourth District, Division 2 in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District, Case No. E055755 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 23, 2013) (published), in a scholary 3-0 panel decision authored by Justice Richli, surveyed Cummings and many other state/federal decisions, ultimately concluding that “routine costs” against a civil rights loser were appropriate without meeting the frivolous/unreasonable/groundless test--disagreeing with Cummings and substantially endorsing contrary reasoning in Perez v. County of Santa Clara, 111 Cal.App.4th 671 (2003).

     This means that routine costs do not have to meet the elevated standard, but the Williams court suggested that the elevated standard would have to be met for attorney’s fees and expert witness (“non-routine”) costs requested against the losing civil rights plaintiff.

     Given the conflicting law in this area, it is likely our state supreme court will have to decide this controversy when the time is right.