Defendants Only Obtain Fees If Plaintiff’s Suit Is Objectively Unreasonable From The Start Or Becomes So During Its Prosecution.
The California Supreme Court, in Travis v. Broad, Case No. S268480 (Cal. Supreme Court Jan. 30, 2023) (published), faced the situation where prevailing defendants in a Political Reform Act case were awarded discretionary attorney’s fees and costs of $896,896.60, with the lower court determining plaintiffs’ case was frivolous in nature. The fee-shifting provision, Government Code section 91003(a), grants trial courts discretion to award attorney’s fees and costs “to a plaintiff or a defendant who prevails.”
The state supreme court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Guerrero, reversed and remanded. It decided that an asymmetrical standard applies, such that the statutory provision is pro-plaintiff, and a defendant only can be awarded fees if the suit was objectively without foundation when brought or became so during its prosecution (borrowing from case law limitations in other civil rights and public interest contexts). A remand was ordered so the lower court could determine if section 91003(a) fees and costs were warranted under the new standard and also could address defendants’ request for CCP §1021.5 fees (the latter request not considered by the trial judge given the 91003(a) ruling).
Comments