Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 19STCV43993, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV43993    Hearing Date: July 11, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Antelope Valley Transit Authority (“AVTA”) and Transdev Services, Inc. (“Transdev”) (collectively, “Defendants”)

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.[1]

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an employment relationship.  The second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) sexual assault, battery and ratification; (3) failure to investigate and prevent in violation of FEHA; (4) violation of Civil Code section 43; (5) violation of Civil Code section 51.7; (6) violation of Civil Code section 52.4; (7) violation of Civil Code section 52.1; (8) false imprisonment; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (10) negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

On March 1, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment (the “MSJs”) to the SAC.  On April 3, 2023, Defendants filed a memorandum of costs (the “MOC”) detailing the costs they incurred during litigation.  On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to tax or strike costs (the “Motion”) which argues that Defendants are not entitled to recover costs in this action.

DISCUSSION

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1032, subdivision (b), a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding, unless provided otherwise by statute.  (CCP § 1032, subd. (b).)  Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), which controls the award of costs in FEHA actions, is an “express exception” to section 1032, subdivision (b).  (Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97, 105.)  An unsuccessful FEHA plaintiff should not be ordered to pay the defendant’s fees or costs unless the plaintiff brought or continued litigating the action without an objective basis for believing it had potential merit.  (Id. at 99-100.)  A prevailing defendant is not entitled to recover costs on non-FEHA claims that are inextricable from a Plaintiff’s non-frivolous FEHA claims.  (See Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1059-60.)  Thus, in order to recover costs on the non-FEHA claims, a defendant must show that the sought-after costs were incurred solely in defending the non-FEHA claims.  (See id. at 1059-62.)

The Court finds that Defendants have not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s FEHA claims were frivolous.  The claims in the SAC arise out of the same nucleus of general facts, and as such, Defendants are not entitled to recover costs related to the non-FEHA claims unless the costs are discrete from the FEHA claims.  The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion to strike costs that arose from or are inextricable from costs incurred in the defense of the FEHA claims.  The Court will discuss at the hearing whether Defendants are able to isolate recoverable costs from the items currently identified in the MOC, and it may allow Defendants to file an amended MOC in light of this ruling.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

                                                                                           Dated this 11th day of July 2023