54 Cal.App.5th 404
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- The DFEH filed an action under Gov. Code §12974 seeking temporary/provisional relief after a same-sex couple alleged denial of service by Cathy’s Creations (Tastries). A TRO and preliminary injunction were denied and judgment ended the provisional relief action.
- Defendants (Cathy’s Creations and its sole shareholder) sought attorneys’ fees under the private attorney‑general statute, Code Civ. Proc. §1021.5, after prevailing in the §12974 proceeding.
- The trial court applied the asymmetrical Christiansburg/Williams standard used for FEHA fee disputes and denied defendants’ fee motion because the DFEH’s suit was not objectively meritless.
- Defendants appealed the denial, arguing §1021.5 applies despite §12974’s unilateral fee provision favoring only the DFEH.
- The Court of Appeal held §12974’s unilateral, specific fee provision governs and precludes awarding §1021.5 fees to a prevailing defendant in a §12974 provisional‑relief action; the trial court’s denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DFEH) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prevailing defendant in a Gov. Code §12974 action may recover fees under Code Civ. Proc. §1021.5 | §12974’s unilateral fee clause is exclusive and more specific; it was intended to govern provisional‑relief fee awards | §12974 is not exclusive or more specific; §1021.5’s public‑interest fee remedy should apply to defendants too | Held: §12974’s unilateral, specific provision excludes §1021.5 awards to prevailing defendants in §12974 actions; defendants cannot recover under §1021.5 |
| Whether the Christiansburg/Williams asymmetrical standard should control fee awards in §12974 cases | (Implicit) If §12974 did not preclude reciprocity, the asymmetrical standard applies to defendant fee requests | Christiansburg/Williams should permit defendants’ fees only when action was objectively without foundation | Court did not resolve: unnecessary once it concluded §12974 precludes §1021.5 reciprocity |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (establishes asymmetrical standard for awarding fees to prevailing defendants in civil rights suits)
- Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., 61 Cal.4th 97 (Cal. 2015) (adopts Christiansburg approach for certain FEHA fee disputes)
- State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 940 (Cal. 2015) (rules on reconciling conflicting statutes; specific statutory provisions prevail)
- Turner v. Assn. of Am. Med. Colleges, 193 Cal.App.4th 1047 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (interprets conflicts between unilateral and reciprocal fee statutes)
- Northwest Energetic Servs., LLC v. Cal. Franchise Tax Bd., 159 Cal.App.4th 841 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (harmonized reciprocal fee statute with §1021.5 where not in direct conflict)
- Richmond Compassionate Care Collective v. 7 Stars Holistic Foundation, 33 Cal.App.5th 38 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (permitted anti‑SLAPP fee awards without defeating unilateral Cartwright Act policy)