Defense, Also, Properly Denied Costs Because Plaintiff’s Claims Were Found To Be Nonfrivolous.
In Wergechik v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC, Case Nos. G056079/G056318 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 3, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff did prevail on FEHA claims against defendants, but she was only awarded a $750 penalty and $150 in statutory attorney’s fees on a single claim. Both sides claimed routine costs, with the trial court striking the costs memoranda and awarding nothing. The appeals by both sides were unsuccessful.
With respect to plaintiff’s claim for costs of $57,365.23, she recovered far less than $25,000 in damage such that the trial judge had discretion to deny costs given that the defense obtained a “lopsided victory.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033(a).) Then, when it came to the defense requests of $247,719.39 in costs, the problem here was that the trial judge found plaintiff’s claims were not frivolous, notwithstanding a defense § 998 offer which might have led to a different result, so that the costs denial was legally proper—forget there is some difference in thinking, but it got clarified in a recent legislative amendment and a more recent appellate decision endorsed by this deciding appellate court. (Gov. Code, § 12965(b); Scott v. City of San Diego, 38 Cal.App.5th 228, 243 (2019) [4/1 DCA opinion].)
Justice Fybel authored this decision on behalf of the 4/3 DCA.
Comments