Lozano Smith Represents Amicus Curiae in Important California Supreme Court Decision Benefiting Public Employers
On January 14, 2010, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (Jan. 14, 2010) ___ Cal.4th ___, a decision of significance to public employers in California. In Chavez, the Court ruled that the attorneys' fees provision of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), which generally provides for the award of attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing FEHA plaintiff, must be read in harmony with Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a). Section 1033 gives trial courts discretion to award, limit, or deny attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff, if the plaintiff's recovery in an unlimited civil case does not exceed the amount that could have been recovered in a limited civil case. A limited civil case is defined as a case for which the amount in controversy between the parties is less than $25,000.
In Chavez, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision, and upheld the trial court's denial of attorneys' fees to the plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a). After several rounds of litigation and eventual trial, the plaintiff prevailed on one of her several FEHA claims, and was awarded $11,500 in damages. The plaintiff then sought nearly $900,000 in attorneys' fees. Because the damages awarded to the plaintiff were far below the $25,000 ceiling for limited jurisdiction cases, and the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees was highly inflated, the Supreme Court found the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's requested fees consistent with section 1033 and FEHA, and appropriate under the facts of the case.
Lozano Smith attorneys, Managing Shareholder Gregory Wedner and Associate Sloan Simmons, represented and submitted an Amicus Curiae Brief in support of the City of Los Angeles on behalf of the League of California Cities ("LCC") and the California State Association of Counties ("CSAC"). An amicus curiae brief is submitted by a professional organization or other entity that is not a party to the litigation, and which advises the court on certain issues in the case.
LCC is an association of 480 California cities dedicated to protecting and restoring local control to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare of their residents, and to enhance the quality of life for all Californians. The LCC is advised by its Legal Advocacy Committee, which monitors litigation of concern to municipalities, and identifies those cases that are of statewide--or nationwide--significance. LCC's Legal Advisory Committee has identified this case as being of such significance. CSAC is a non-profit corporation, the membership of which consists of the 58 California counties. CSAC sponsors a Litigation Coordination Program, which is administered by the County Counsels' Association of California and is overseen by the Association's Litigation Overview Committee, comprised of county counsels throughout the state. The Litigation Overview Committee monitors litigation of concern to counties statewide and has determined that this case is a matter affecting all counties.
For questions on this decision, please contact one of our seven California offices.
As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this Alert does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.
2010 Lozano Smith