No Evidence That Case Was Filed Or Maintained For An Improper Purpose.
In Fong v. Eastern Municipal Water Dist., Case No. E071088 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 16, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff—through an attorney—filed a complaint alleging illegal recording Penal Code and FEHA claims. Her attorney withdrew from the case, and the defense filed an unopposed summary judgment motion. Later, after entry of judgment, defendant Water District sought to recoup prevailing party attorney’s fees under CCP § 1038 and FEHA’s fee-shifting statute (Gov. Code § 12965(b)). The lower court denied the fees request.
The 4/2 DCA affirmed, specifically based on the particular circumstances at play.
CCP § 1038 allows public entities to obtain fees for a frivolous civil action under the California Tort Claims Act after a defendant prevails on a summary judgment, directed verdict, or nonsuit motion. FEHA only allows discretionary fees if the non-prevailing plaintiff had no objective belief for believing plaintiff’s case had potential merit.
On the § 1038 request, the statute required a fee motion before entry of judgment, which did not occur despite some ambiguity in the statutory language—so, it was untimely. (Gamble v. Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power, 97 Cal.App.4th 253, 258-259 (2002).) With respect to the FEHA fee request, plaintiff filed the suit when she was attorney represented and did not put up any obstacles to a dispositive motion during the prosecution phase of the case—these circumstances did not show bad faith.
Comments