Lower Court Must Make Findings That FEHA Case Was Frivolous/Groundless Before Awarding Costs To A Prevailing Defendant, With Cost Memorandum Not Sufficing. On October 5, 2026, we posted on San Diego-Tomas v. Aspire Bakeries, LLC, Case No. A175977 (1st Dist., Div. 4 originally filed as unpublished on Oct. 2, 2026). It held that a lower
Lower Court Made No Predicate Finding That The Action Was Frivolous, With Boilerplate Language In Judgment Not Showing Express Findings Were Made To That Effect. San Diego-Tomas v. Aspire Bakeries, LLC, Case No. A175977 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 2, 2026) (unpublished) is a situation where a FEHA non-prevailing plaintiff lost a summary judgment motion
However, Ninth Circuit Did Agree The District Court, On Remand, Could Find Use of Recycled Work And Errors In The Fee Petition Would Justify A Reduction On Reasonableness Grounds. In Price v. Diab, No. 25-713 (9th Cir. July 13, 2026) (published), the district court granted an American with Disability Act (ADA) plaintiff a default injunction
Plaintiffs Prevailed In Protracted, Bitterly-Fought Litigation Where The Jury Verdict Was Only Around $64,000 In Total. Although we usually post on California fees cases, the fee award in the federal civil rights case of NTN Collective v. Retsel Corporation d/b/a Grand Gateway Hotel, No. 5:22-cv-05027-KES (D.S.D. July 7, 2026 fee award; Doc. No. 485) caught
Plaintiff Argued That The Fees Disclosure Invaded The Attorney-Client Privilege, An Argument Rejected At Both The Trial And Appellate Levels. In what we consider to be a very pragmatically reasoned decision, Johnson v. Rubylin, Inc., Case No. H053076 (6th Dist. Dec. 19, 2025) (published) decided that the attorney-client privilege does not support a disability plaintiff
Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5330(d) So Provides. In Doe v. County of Orange, Case No. G064562 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 2, 2025) (published), the appellate court reminds us that Welfare & Institutions Code section 5330(d) allows a mentally disordered person to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, on a mandatory basis, by a
Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion On The Fee Award—It Cut The Requested Fees By $525,342.75. In Carranza v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B327196 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 23, 2025) (partially published; fee discussion not published), a plaintiff sued City of Los Angeles under FEHA for a hostile work environment
Although She Was Unsuccessful On Some Claims, The Work Was Interrelated Such That Neither Allocation Nor A Further Reduction Was Required. In Gonzalez v. County of Fresno, Case No. F086776 (5th Dist. Apr. 16, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff recovered on a Bane Act claim (which has a fee-shifting statute), even though she failed to recover
Other Items Also Had To Be Revisited. In the FEHA area, if appropriately raised, lower courts must take into account plaintiff’s financial situation in making a costs award against a non-prevailing FEHA plaintiff even where plaintiff’s case was deemed frivolous. The lower court did award costs against the plaintiff, finding indigency was irrelevant in
No Indication Case Was Frivolous. We have posted on an emerging trend in FEHA cases, which is that routine costs cannot be assessed against a non-prevailing plaintiff unless the case is deemed frivolous. Vanrooy v. Jacobes-Downing-Hughes, Inc., Case No. C100312 (3d Dist. Apr. 7, 2025) (unpublished) is a continuation of that theme. There, plaintiff’s claims
