$400,000 Fee Award Reversed As A Matter Of Law, With County Entitled To Routine Costs As The Prevailing Party Below.
In a “mixed-motive” whistleblower case, plaintiff proved the elements of his whistleblower claim, but he obtained no relief because defendant employer proved the “same-decision defense.” The lower court in Lampkin v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B336806 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 8, 2025) (published) awarded plaintiff routine costs of $52,043.65 and $400,000 in attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 1102.5 (a one-way fee shifting provision working in favor of a “successful” plaintiff). Those awards went POOF! on appeal, with County given the chance to seek routine costs as the prevailing party.
The appellate court found that plaintiff did not bring a “successful action” for purposes of a statutory fee award. It refused to extend reasoning in Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (2013), a FEHA case allowing for fees involving a same-decision defense situation, on numerous bases—most of all that FEHA and the whistleblower statutes have different nuances. County then argued it was entitled to routine costs as the prevailing party, with the 2/4 DCA agreeing, because County fell within costs entitlement under two categories of CCP § 1032—remanding for a determination as to whether County followed the correct procedures to claim costs.