Prominence Of Suit Prevailed, Plus Appellate Court Offers Tips On What Trial Courts Ought To Follow When There Is A Split In Intermediate Appellate Thought On An Issue.
In Thiry v. Pet Partners, Inc., Case No. E070851 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 20, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff brought a mixed FEHA/whistleblower/UCF suit based on allegations of whistleblower activities and medical leave retaliation. Plaintiff lost, with defendant moving for recovery of costs (including expert witness fees) under CCP § 998. The lower court denied the request, determining that the FEHA request was predominant/not frivolous in nature and that no apportionment of costs could really be had on non-FEHA claims because everything was intertwined. Defendant appealed, but the 4/2 DCA affirmed.
The first issue really was dispositive, namely, a split on appellate thinking on whether 998 costs could be recovered in a FEHA case where the lower court determined plaintiff’s FEHA claim was not frivolous. The 4/2 DCA followed its prior opinion in Arave v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 19 Cal.App.5th 525 (2018) [finding costs nonrecoverable] versus the opposite conclusion by the 4/1 DCA in Sviridov v. City of San Diego, 14 Cal.App.5th 514 (2017) [costs were recoverable in a whistleblower case]. [NOTE: The 2/8 DCA in Huerta v. Kava Holdings, Inc., 29 Cal.App.5th 74, 84 (2018) followed Arave over Sviridov.] So, ordinary fee shifting costs were not available under FEHA. However, what about the non-FEHA whistleblower claims? The 4/2 DCA agreed that the FEHA claims predominated, such that it would defeat FEHA policies to not allow costs given that the lower court found the claims were intertwined.
BLOG OBSERVATION—The lower court, faced with a split on the FEHA issue, followed the conclusion reached by the 4/2 DCA reviewing court from its own venue. The 4/2 DCA recognized that trial courts can follow any decision it finds more persuasive when a difference in appellate thinking is involved, but the appellate court did note that is generally wise for the trial court to follow the lead of the appellate court in the District in which it is located. (See McCallum v. McCallum, 190 Cal.App.3d 308, 315 n. 4 (1987).)
Comments