Fees Properly Included A 1.3 Multiplier, With No Allocation Required Because Proof On FEHA And Other Claims Were Intertwined.
Plaintiff tenants, a cohabiting unmarried couple, sued a San Francisco defendant apartment owner for FEHA marital discrimination, invasion of privacy, and breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant based on owner’s actions in attempting to evict tenants without investigating their declaration of domestic partnership and refusing to accept some repair requests by one of the unmarried partners not technically named in the lease. Tenants won their FEHA claims and were awarded $11,970 in damages. However, they lost their privacy and quiet enjoyment claims. The lower court then awarded them FEHA fees of $389,200 (inclusive of a 1.3 multiplier) and expert witness fees/costs of $8,227.50.
Owner appealed in Ribotto v. Graystone Partners, LP, Case No. A147713 (1st Dist., Div. 3 July 29, 2019) (unpublished). The fee award was not disturbed on appeal.
The lower court did not err by failing to apportion between the FEHA and unsuccessful claims because the proof all related to the basic case story by plaintiffs that they were unlawfully attempting to evict the tenants. Given the discretionary nature of this call based on the trial evidence, no abuse of discretion occurred given the lower court was in a better position to make this “judgment call.” Because tenants did prove their FEHA marital discrimination claim, use of a 1.3 multiplier was no abuse of discretion either.
BLOG OBSERVATION—This opinion was authored by Retired Justice Rebecca Wiseman, who used to sit on the Fifth District Court of Appeal. She retired to the Bay Area and has been appointed by assignment to sit on some appellate cases argued before the First District.
Comments