Defendant Could Not Renege On Joint Stipulation Wherein It Agreed That It Would Not Dispute Liability, And Would Not Dispute Plaintiff’s Entitlement To Fees/Costs Under Civil Code Sections 51 And 52.
In Gutierrez v. Chopard, Case No. B309098 (2d Dist., Div. 5 August 19, 2022) (published), plaintiff, who is legally blind, filed a complaint alleging defendant violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act and Title III of the ADA by not providing visually-impaired persons equal access to its website. After defendant’s unsuccessful motions to strike the complaint and for summary judgment, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. The settlement agreement was not included in the record on appeal, but a Joint Stipulation Re: Conditional Settlement of All Claims that was executed and filed by the parties was included. Under the joint stipulation, defendant agreed it would not dispute its liability, and would not dispute plaintiff’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs under Civil Code sections 51 and 52.
After plaintiff was awarded $95,295.67 in attorneys’ fees and costs, through an opposed noticed motion, defendant appealed – claiming that plaintiff was not entitled to attorneys’ fees. Defendant argued that plaintiff had neither a finding nor admission of liability as required for an award of fees/costs under the Unruh Act as the agreements contained in the joint stipulation were superseded and replaced by those in the confidential settlement agreement. The 2/5 DCA did not buy into this argument – finding it to be nothing more than a red herring at best – with defendant’s own counsel admitting at oral argument that the joint stipulation and settlement agreement were “substantively identical.” Plaintiff’s fees/costs award was affirmed, with the panel finding defendant was bound by, and could not renege on, the agreements contained in the joint stipulation.
Comments