Both Lack Of Objective And Subjective Good Faith Shown Below.
In Ponte v. County of Calaveras, Case No. C079180 (3d Dist. July 17, 2017 unpublished; published on Aug. 15, 2017), plaintiff asked Calaveras County to pay him over $150,000 to reimburse for work pursuant to an oral contract. The lower court eventually granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s third amended complaint in favor of County, with County then garnering $65,000 in attorney’s fees under CCP § 1038, a sanctions fee statute allowing County to obtain the equivalent of malicious prosecution fees where it obtains a summary judgment and can demonstrate the action was not brought/was not prosecuted with reasonable cause and in good faith (both an objective and a subjective element).
The appellate court affirmed. Simply because plaintiff subjectively wanted to be paid did not demonstrate his lawsuit was objectively reasonable in nature given the problems with enforcing an oral contract in most cases against the government. (Put another way, get it in writing.) The lack of merit also “bleed through” to show the case was not brought with subjective good faith.