Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations CA2/3
96 Cal.App.5th 908
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2023Background
- Snoeck sued ExakTime on six employment causes of action under FEHA; a jury found for Snoeck only on failure to engage in a good faith interactive process and awarded $130,088. The appellate court later affirmed that verdict.
- Snoeck moved for FEHA attorney fees seeking a corrected lodestar of about $1.19 million and a 1.75 multiplier. ExakTime opposed and submitted evidence of repeated uncivil emails from plaintiff counsel Perry Smith.
- The trial court reduced hours by 20% for billing concerns, applied a 1.2 positive multiplier for contingency/time value, then applied a 0.4 negative multiplier based on counsel's persistent incivility, producing a fee award of $686,795.62.
- Smith's emails repeatedly accused defense counsel of lying, fraud, and duping the courts; the court also cited Smith's antagonistic courtroom tone.
- Snoeck appealed, arguing the fee reduction was an impermissible sanction, untethered to costs, violated FEHA policy and constitutional rights; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may reduce a lodestar by applying a negative multiplier for counsel incivility | Snoeck: court had no authority to shift or reduce fees as an incivility sanction; reduction punished counsel | ExakTime: courts may adjust lodestar for attorney skill and incivility is a component of skill | Held: Yes; court may consider pervasive incivility as reflecting attorney skill when adjusting lodestar |
| Whether a negative multiplier may be applied absent proof that incivility caused specific additional costs | Snoeck: reduction untethered to any increased costs so is punitive | ExakTime: incivility affects overall skill and efficiency; lodestar may be adjusted to reflect fair market value | Held: No direct showing of discrete costs required; incivility may justify downward adjustment of reasonable hours or rate |
| Whether reducing fees for incivility conflicts with FEHA policy of incentivizing plaintiffs | Snoeck: reduction undermines statutory purpose and effectively shifts fees to defendant | ExakTime: FEHA allows reasonable fee awards and courts may reduce lodestar for reasonableness factors | Held: Reduction did not violate FEHA; prevailing plaintiff is entitled to reasonable fees, not a windfall |
| Constitutional and due process challenges to fee reduction for speech and vagueness of civility standard | Snoeck: reduction punished protected advocacy and denied due process; civility rule vague | ExakTime: action was not punitive sanction but a reasoned fee adjustment | Held: Court did not impose a punishment; no violation of First Amendment or due process shown; civility-related adjustment permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) (lodestar method with discretionary positive or negative multipliers; attorney skill is a factor)
- Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc., 61 Cal.App.5th 734 (2021) (trial courts may consider counsel incivility as aspect of attorney skill when awarding fees)
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) (lodestar adjustments aim to fix fee at fair market value)
- Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 970 (2010) (FEHA attorney fees computed by lodestar method and adjusted by relevant factors)
- Flannery v. California Highway Patrol, 61 Cal.App.4th 629 (1998) (trial court must properly utilize lodestar and be cautious when applying multipliers)
- EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler, 162 Cal.App.4th 770 (2008) (courts may not reduce fees merely to punish; but may reduce fees that were unnecessary due to litigation conduct)
- Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 30 Cal.App.5th 24 (2018) (when applying a substantial negative multiplier, court should explain case-specific reasons)