Goldbaum v. Regents of University of California
191 Cal. App. 4th 703
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Regents possess constitutionally broad control over the University of California, with limited legislative regulation in certain areas.
- Labor Code section 218.5 provides attorney fees to the prevailing party in wage/benefit nonpayment actions; its applicability to the Regents is disputed.
- Goldbaum, UCSD ophthalmology professor, sought pension benefits reporting and asked for attorney fees under 218.5 in a mandate action against the Regents.
- Parties settled for service credit, with Goldbaum allowed to roll funds to offset costs; Goldbaum reserved rights to fees.
- Trial court denied fees to Goldbaum, relying on prior wage/benefits cases to find constitutional immunity for the Regents.
- On appeal, the court held the Regents are constitutionally immune from 218.5 and the American rule applies; no prevailing party fees awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Regents are immune from section 218.5. | Goldbaum argues 218.5 applies as police power regulation. | Regents contend constitutional immunity; 218.5 is not applicable to internal university affairs. | Regents are constitutionally immune; American rule applies. |
| Whether 218.5 falls within police power or state regulation exceptions. | 218.5 is a general police power fee-shifting tool. | 218.5 cannot override Regents’ immunity; wage/benefit matters are internal affairs. | Not applicable; wage/benefit matters remain internal affairs with immunity. |
| Whether Regents’ conduct is covered by 218.5 due to being a public employer. | As a public employer, Regents could be subject to wage-related fee shifting. | Internal affairs exemption applies; Regents act in internal governance. | Exemption prevents application of 218.5. |
| Whether Regents’ answers implicitly conceded applicability of 218.5 or affected fee entitlement. | Regents’ pleadings imply 218.5 could apply. | Prayers for fees don’t establish entitlement; other statutes may apply. | Not a basis to award fees; 218.5 inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Francisco Labor Council v. Regents of University of California, 26 Cal.3d 785 (1980) (Regents immune from general police power and wage-related regulation)
- Aubry v. Regents of University of California, 42 Cal.App.4th 579 (1996) (prevailing wage laws not generally applicable to Regents)
- Kim v. Regents of University of California, 80 Cal.App.4th 160 (2000) (overtime wages not subject to Regents’ liability; immunity discussed)
- In re Work Uniform Cases, 133 Cal.App.4th 328 (2005) (uniform costs are internal affairs; Regents immune)
- Roa v. Lodi Medical Group, 37 Cal.3d 920 (1985) (police power limits on attorney-fee regimes)
- Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170 (1920) (federal support for attorney-fee limitations akin to police power)
- Olson v. Automobile Club of Southern California, 42 Cal.4th 1142 (2008) (American rule on attorney fees reaffirmed)
- Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma, 23 Cal.3d 296 (1979) (wage matter locality vs statewide concern; Regents autonomy context)
- Campbell v. Regents of University of California, 35 Cal.4th 311 (2005) (Regents’ general immunity from state regulation acknowledged)