This Situation Was Far From A Mere “Draw,” As The Defense Characterized It.
In Bayer v. Morse, Case No. A147318 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 28, 2018) (unpublished), 3 plaintiffs sued an apartment complex based on discrimination by the building management, which discrimination was aimed at tenants with children. Two plaintiffs won from a jury $50,000 each in noneconomic damages (later trebled by the trial judge to $150,000 under an applicable statute) and $10,000 each in punitive damages. A third plaintiff won from a jury $25,000 in noneconomic damages and a $25,000 penalty, although losing an injunction request. Because plaintiffs had fee entitlement under a San Francisco Rent Ordinance and the FEHA fee-shifting statute, the trial court determined they all were prevailing parties and awarded $334,080 in fees (this included a 1.2 multiplier, which was less than 1.5 multiplier requested). The defense appealed.
Defendants claimed that the matter was essentially a “draw.” The trial judge said “really?,” and the appellate court agreed—focusing on the fact two plaintiffs won 32 out of 42 claims and the third plaintiff (although the call was closer) did win significant relief. Nothing in the record showed that the injunction was the main litigation objective of plaintiffs. With respect to the due process argument, the 1/4 DCA did not believe that the fee award shocked conscience so as to result in a reversal.