Employment: Reversal Of Information Practices Act Claim Meant That Fee/Costs Denial Had To Be Reversed—Published Decision On IPA Fee-Shifting Statute

However, On Remand, Court Had To Decide Who Prevailed On A Practical Level Anyway.

               Wentworth v. Regents of the University of California, Case Nos. A168296/A168861 (1^st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 30, 2024) (published) shows how reversal of a claim bearing fee exposure will result in a reversal of a fee denial, as a general rule.  However, the appellate court also sent some indications that the lower court needed to take a practical view of what side prevailed depending on what happened on remand.

               In this one, plaintiff lost at the summary adjudication stage on FEHA and Information Practice Act, Civ. Code, § 1798 et al. (IPA), claims, with the lower court denying plaintiff’s request for fees and costs in entirety.

               On appeal, plaintiff obtained a reversal on only the IPA claim, which meant the fee and costs denial had to be reversed also.  Because there was no published decision on the fee-shifting provision in plaintiff’s favor under Civil Code section 1798.46(b), the appellate court did clarify that there are two ways to potentially get fees—a judicial resolution in plaintiff’s favor or a decision that plaintiff was a catalyst for change.  But the appellate court did give some further observations for the litigants, which also apply to most fee issues:  how significant was the IPA win if a favorable judicial resolution is obtained later or how important was it under a catalyst theory given only obtaining a personnel file seemed to be the victory.