No Basis For Fees Based On Defensed Claims; No Abuse of Discretion in Denying RFA Sanctions.
In Chichi v. Ennen, Case No. D053410 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 18, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiffs brought a class action under California’s unfair competition statute based on violations of several other California statutes. After plaintiffs rested their case-in-chief at a bench trial, the trial court decertified the class and granted an oral motion for judgment against plaintiffs.
Defendants then moved to recover attorney’s fees based on two grounds: (1) a contractual attorney’s fees clause in the contract involved in the overall tapestry of the UCL claim; and (2) the RFA statute that allows a party to recoup fees for proving the truth of certain requests that were denied by plaintiffs.
Defendants did not succeed on appeal.
As to the first ground, the Court of Appeal found no basis to award fees to defendants under the UCL. “The unfair competition law does not provide for attorney fees. Although a prevailing plaintiff on an unfair competition claim may seek attorney fees as a private attorney general under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, a prevailing party has no such right.” (Slip Opn., at p. 4, citing Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 98 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1179-1180 (2002).)
Defendants then tried to argue there was a contractual basis for fee recovery under Civil Code section 1717. Wrong again, said the appellate panel. The UCL claim did not allege any contract was breached and did not seek enforcement of the contract; so, only a UCL claim was involved that conferred no basis for a fee award.
Defendants then defaulted to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420(b), which allows a court to award fees as a cost of proof for failing to admit an RFA under specified circumstances. (See our category “Requests for Admissions” to explore this statute more fully.) The problem with this argument is that any challenge to a lower court ruling is reviewed under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. (Laabs v. City of Victorville, 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1275-1276 (2008).) In this instance, nothing in the record indicated that the plaintiffs lacked a reasonable basis for contesting the matters referred to in the RFA. Given this determination, the refusal to award fees was sustained on appeal.