Civil Rights FEHA: Chiang v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B238948 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 15, 2014) (Unpublished).
County won summary judgment but appealed the lower court’s refusal to award it requested attorney’s fees of $324,098.80 as the prevailing party. The appellate court affirmed the conclusion that fees are not guided simply by who lost on the merits, agreeing that the case was not facially meritless under the Cummings factors. (For those of you wanting to know the law in this area, see the leading intermediate appellate case of Cummings v. Benco Building Services, 11 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1389-1390 (1992); for an example of a case where a defendant was awarded FEHA cases because of the baselessness of a case established by plaintiff’s own admissions, see Addison v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B201007 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 3, 2008) (unpublished) [reviewed in our November 4, 2008 post].)
Family Law: Marriage of Vazquez, Case No. G047999 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 15, 2014) (Unpublished).
In this one, ex-husband Adrian (but not the famous Adrian Monk) was hit with $25,000 in fees under Family Code section 271 (a sanctions provision) and $36,424 in fees under sections 2030/2032 (needs-based fees). He argued that the 271 award was void because it referenced Evidence Code section 271 versus Family Code section 271—a typo argument that did not go very far on appeal. As far as the second award, ex-husband presented an inadequate record by failing to obtain a reporter’s transcript of the proceedings such that the award was upheld. Justice Rylaarsdam penned the opinion.
Special Agricultural Fee Shifting Statute/Trespass: Gill v. Varwig, Case No. C069565 (3d Dist., Jan. 15, 2014) (Unpublished).
Plaintiffs planted a vineyard on their property, having to sue to obtain a trial court order that they had a public right of way or prescriptive easement to the property. However, the lower court denied their fees request under CCP § 1021.9, a special fee-shifting statute applicable in certain cultivation/livestock trespass cases. The judgment below was affirmed with modifications, including sustaining the fee denial for two reasons: (1) there was no cultivation trespass because plaintiffs only had a possessory interest, with easement interference being a nuisance but not a trespass; and (2) any damage was to an easement, which is technically not a real property interest.
Comments