Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: BC694175, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC694175    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.  Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.  If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            Plaintiff alleges that she went on a workers’ compensation-related medical leave of absence due to a shoulder injury, and was cleared to return to work with restrictions. However, Defendant allegedly refused to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff’s disability or to engage in a good faith interactive process. Instead, Defendant unilaterally filed an application for disability retirement with CalPERS, without Plaintiff’s consent. Plaintiff alleges that she was wrongfully terminated by being forced into disability retirement.

            On November 8, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant. Defendant now moves for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Gov. Code, § 12965(b).

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant California Highway Patrol’s motion for attorneys’ fees is DENIED. 

ANALYSIS

Motion For Attorneys’ Fees

On November 8, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant California Highway Patrol (“CHP”). Defendant now moves for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Gov. Code, § 12965(b) in the amount of $43,021.25 on the ground that plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, and/or groundless, and plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so when the CHP filed its motion for summary judgment on July 14, 2022. In the Reply, Defendant clarifies that it is only seeking attorney’s fees from July 14, 2022 to the present on the ground that after Defendant filed its summary judgment motion on July 14, 2022, it became objectively clear that plaintiff’s claims were groundless and without foundation, and Plaintiff did not submit an opposition to the summary judgment motion or appear at the hearing to prove otherwise.

             In 2021, the Legislature amended the FEHA attorney’s fees provision in Gov. Code, § 12965(c)(6) to read as follows:

In civil actions brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party, including the department, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees, except that, notwithstanding Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prevailing defendant shall not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.

(Gov't Code § 12965(c)(6).)

Here, the parties appeared to have settled the case after Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment on July 14, 2022, and the only motions heard after that were: (1) August 19, 2022, September 9, 2022, September 26, 2022 and October 3, 2022 hearings on the motion to withdraw or amend the deemed admissions, which was filed before Defendant filed its summary judgment motion on June 14, 2022; at the first three hearings, the Court was informed that the parties were in the process of settling the case, and at the fourth, the Court granted Defendant’s summary judgment motion; and (2) a motion for reconsideration filed on October 10, 2022 to set aside the Court’s October 3, 2022 order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the parties had agreed in principle to settle the claims prior to the Court’s ruling, but Plaintiff’s counsel missed the October 3, 2022 hearing due to a calendaring error.

Given this procedural history, it cannot be said the Plaintiff continued to litigate the case after Defendant CHP filed its summary judgment motion on July 14, 2022, especially in that Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the summary judgment motion. As such, there is no basis for awarding attorney’s fees against Plaintiff pursuant to (Gov't Code § 12965(c)(6).)

The motion for attorneys’ fees is DENIED.