No Abuse of Discretion, Especially Where Declaration Could Not Be Used To Trump Deposition Testimony in Summary Judgment Proceeding.
For a plaintiff losing FEHA claims in California state court, attorney’s fees can only be awarded against them where the claims are frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or brought in bad faith. (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 970, 985 (2010).)
That was just the situation that happened to occur in Williams v. County of Los Angeles, Case Nos. B226750/B231029 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 28, 2012) (unpublished).
After a gender discrimination claim was dismissed pursuant to stipulation, plaintiff lost her remaining race discrimination/harassment/retaliation claims on summary judgment, with some of the claims dismissed because plaintiff tried to impermissibly introduce opposing SJM declaration testimony that contradicted earlier deposition testimony (a clear “no no”). The remainder of the claims were found to lack factual basis. In light of this record, the trial court awarded $183,292.75 in attorney’s fees against plaintiff and in favor of Los Angeles County.
Fee award affirmed. Introduction of the contradicting declaration was a bad faith tactic, and the other charges lacked any factual proof. Plaintiff was the chief witness so that she should have known about the absence of a colorable harassment claim. No problem here, said the appellate court in sustaining the fee award.