Docket here.
Although I apparently glossed over it when it was in the Court of Appeal, I’ve decided this is a case worth keeping an eye on. Here’s the issue:
Does Code of Civil Procedure section 1033 permit a trial court to deny Government Code section 12965 attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff in an action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, section 12900 et seq.) if the judgment obtained in a court with jurisdiction over “unlimited” civil cases (see Code Civ. Proc., section 88) could have been rendered in a court with jurisdiction over “limited” civil cases (see Code Civ. Proc., section 85, subd. (a))?
If the Supreme Court says yes, then will plaintiffs still file FEHA cases where the damages are less than $25,000? Employers will argue that in low value cases it’s appropriate for the more streamlined limited civil procedure, which will keep costs down. Keeping costs down will also reduce the negotiating leverage generated by the costs of discovery and potential attorneys’ fees in unlimited civil cases. Plaintiffs will point out that will seriously hamper enforcement of the policies embedded in the FEHA.
This could be huge. Sorry I missed it before.
{ 2 comments }
Three people on the jury wanted to award Chavez over $100,000.00. They stated that they didn,t know what to award but stated after the trial they should have awarded chavez more damages.
Three people on the jury wanted to award Chavez over $100,000.00. They stated that they didn,t know what to award but stated after the trial they should have awarded chavez more damages. One jurist wanted to award chavez over $300,000.00. The jurist stated that the jury foreman was very controlling in deliberations and only wanted to award chavez $10,000.00 for emotional damages and $1,500.00 in lost earnings.
Comments on this entry are closed.