Cross-Complainant Sought $1.25 Million In Fees; Fees Were Appropriate Despite The Delay In Adding The FEHA Cross-Claim.
This case is interesting to show how procedural rulings to add a claim at trial—such as a FEHA cross-claim—can make or break the affirmance of a subsequent fee award to the prevailing FEHA cross-complainant.
Pak v. Rassman, Case Nos. G061970 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 11, 2025) (unpublished) is a situation where, on the eve of trial, a cross-complainant was allowed leave to amend to pursue a FEHA claim against cross-defendant, although there was no reporting of the objections on the amendment request (even though the prior cross-claims would have not allowed for fee recovery). Once that occurred, there was a general verdict which, among other things, awarded cross-complainant $1.4 million on the FEHA cross-claim. Later, after requesting $1.25 million in fees under FEHA, the lower court awarded $576,000 in fees to cross-complainant and against cross-defendant.
The 4/3 DCA, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Scott, affirmed the fee award after finding that the FEHA amendment was no abuse of discretion. The appellate court was unaware of authority to deny fees under a FEHA claim despite delay in pursuing a such a claim. It found no abuse of discretion in the fee award, which was under one-half of the requested amount.
BLOG BONUS—Civility is a recurring theme drawing ire by appellate courts. Here, appellant’s trial counsel impugned opposing litigation counsel’s character and age in trial briefs and emails. For these transgressions, the appellate court directed the opinion to the State Bar to consider whether this activity constituted misconduct. Do not make ad hominem attacks, as numerous opinions, ethical commentary, and general articles advise against.