Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV47068, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47068    Hearing Date: December 21, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On April 25, 2022, Plaintiff Javier Montes filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants SPS Technologies, LLC, DBA: PB Fasteners and Hector Pelayo (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (7) declaratory judgment; and (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

On September 21, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  On October 16, 2023, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.

On November 3, 2023, Defendants filed a memorandum of costs.  On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to tax costs, arguing that Defendants are not entitled to costs under Government Code section 12965.

A prevailing defendant in a FEHA action may be awarded fees and costs only when the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.  (Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (c)(6).)  This prohibition on recovery also applies to fees and costs that would otherwise be recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 998.  (Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (c)(6).)  “By making a cost award discretionary rather than mandatory, Government Code section 12965(b) [now section 12965, subdivision (c)(6)] expressly excepts FEHA actions from Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b)’s mandate for a cost award to the prevailing party.”  (Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97, 105.)  In determining whether an action is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, the court must not “engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without foundation. . . . Even when the law or the facts appear questionable or unfavorable at the outset, a party may have an entirely reasonable ground for bringing suit.” (Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1978) 434 U.S. 412, 421-422 (Christiansburg).)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous and unreasonable.  (Opposition at pp. 6-7.)  Defendants rely on the Court’s statements about the reliability of Plaintiff’s declaration submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.  (Ibid.)  Defendants note that the Court granted their motion for summary judgment, and “[e]ven now, Plaintiff after failing to timely serve a Motion for New Trial, has filed an Appeal, continuing to litigate this matter despite the Court’s ruling that a disputed fact does not exist.”  (Id. at p. 7.)

 Plaintiff’s loss on summary judgment does not mean that it was unreasonable for him to bring or continue litigating this action.  (Christiansburg, supra, 434 U.S. at pp. 421-422.)  Although Plaintiff was ultimately unsuccessful in opposing the motion, Defendants have not shown that it was unreasonable for Plaintiff to bring or continue to pursue his claims.

The motion to tax costs is GRANTED.  Defendants shall not recover their costs in this action.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 21st day of December 2023