|
..........................................Chapter 7: Securing and Enforcing Judgments ........................................................
A. Provisional Remedies ........................................................C. Costs and Attorney's Fees p. 808, Note 3: The California Supreme Court has decided that the fees for an expert hired by a party may not be recovered as part of an award of "attorney's fees" under the private attorney general statute. More express authority than CCP § 1021.5 is required. Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California, 42 Cal.4th 1142, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 81, 179 P.3d 882 (2008). 2. Attorney's Fees p. 820, Note 4: In cases where the plaintiff obtained relief from the court, attorney's fees may be awarded if the plaintiff succeeded on any significant issue in the litigation, which achieved some of the benefit sought in bringing suit. In contrast, in cases where attorney's fees are requested under the catalyst theory, the plaintiff must obtain the primary relief sought from the defendant through settlement or through the defendant's actions prompted by the suit. Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Commission, 160 Cal.App.4th 867, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 32 (2008). p. 821, new Note 6: It is vital that the court consider a request
for attorney's fees under the applicable statute. For example,
in Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, 160 Cal.App.4th 410, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d
783, review granted and opinion superseded, 2008 WL 2152191 (2008),
after five years of litigation in an employment retaliation action,
a jury awarded the plaintiff $11,500. The plaintiff sought approximately
$871,000 in attorney's fees under the Fair Employment and Housing
Act. Cal. Gov't Code § 12965(b). The trial court instead
denied costs under CCP § 1033(a), because Chavez's ultimate
recovery was below the jurisdictional minimum for an unlimited
civil case. The Court of Appeal reversed. Although the latter
statute was intended to encourage the pursuit of minor grievances
in courts of limited jurisdiction, that rationale was inapposite
in a claim of statutory discrimination under FEHA or other civil
rights actions, which do not always involve large sums of money.
The California Supreme Court has granted review. p. 830, Note 3: One court summarized the distinction as follows:
Mitchell Land and Improvement Co. v. Ristorante Ferrantelli, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 479, 486, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 9, 15 (2007) (citing Drybread). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ............................................... |