Attorney Fees Are Rather Discretionary, And The Trial Judge Is Usually In The Best Position To Exercise That Discretion.
Pamela Pollock alleged her supervisor, Michael Kelso, sexually harassed her and discriminated against her based on race by denying her a promotion. The trial court initially ruled the lawsuit was time-barred, but the California Supreme Court reversed that decision, setting guidelines on how to determine when the statute of limitations begins for such cases. It also clarified that costs or attorney fees may not be awarded to the prevailing defendant without determining that the plaintiff's case was frivolous.
Pollock moved for attorney fees under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the trial court awarded her $493,577.10. Kelso appealed, arguing Pollock was not the prevailing party and the fee amount was too high. However, the court upheld the attorney fee award, emphasizing the discretion given to trial courts in such decisions. It affirmed Pollock, through settlement, effectively prevailed, and the trial court’s fee award was reasonable, even though Kelso contested the amount. Under the circumstances, plaintiff's counsel, who was not in the enviable position of getting a regular paycheck, was entitled to a multiplier of 1.8 in a hard fought case. Pollock v. Kelso, B320574 (2/8 1/8/2025) (Wiley, Grimes, Viramontes).
COMMENT: The case reinforces the trial court’s discretion in evaluating and awarding attorney fees, highlighting the nuanced considerations in such decisions.
Comments