Defendant’s Challenge To Application Of A 1.5 Positive Multiplier Was Rebuffed On Appeal.
The California Whistleblower Protection Act (CWPA), Gov. Code section 8547 et seq., has a mandatory prevailing party fee-shifting provision allowing reasonable attorney’s fees as provided by law to a party prevailing on a cause of action under CWPA. (See section 8547.10(c).) This provided entitlement authorization to a prevailing plaintiff in Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Murphy, Case No. D084092 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 10, 2026) (unpublished).
There, an employee won a CWPA counter-claim against Regents, with Regents winning $67,131 in damages under their breach of loyalty claim, but with Dr. Murphy being awarded by a jury over $9.5 million in past/future economic damages and $30 million in past/future noneconomic damages. The trial judge later awarded Dr. Murphy $2,921,370 in CWPA attorney’s fees, inclusive of a positive 1.5 multiplier.
The 4/1 DCA affirmed the merits judgment, with a significant caveat: the $20 million component of the past noneconomic damage award was excessive, with a new trial ordered on those damages unless Dr. Murphy accepted a $12 million downward reduction in damages. However, the fee award was affirmed. Regents only challenged the 1.5 multiplier, which is reviewed under a “clearly wrong” standard. (The Kennedy Com. V. City of Huntington Beach, 91 Cal.App.5th 436, 467 (2023).) Regents principally relied on the argument that the lower court ignored its public status where the burden of payment fell on taxpayers. The record belied that the lower court did not consider the factor, which was not preclusive in nature, not to mention that other factors also supported an enhancement.