Sviridov v. City of San Diego, D069785

Plaintiff Aleksei Sviridov, a former San Diego police officer, brought claims including POBRA and FEHA-related theories after two terminations; earlier appeals resolved jurisdictional and timeliness issues and culminated in remand for judgment for the City.
After remittitur, the City sought $90,387.28 in costs, including about $46,489 previously awarded after summary judgment plus later costs.
The City introduced evidence it served three statutory settlement offers under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 during the litigation; Sviridov rejected each.
Sviridov moved to strike the cost bill, arguing Williams v. Chino Valley (FEHA) and POBRA provisions barred recovery of costs unless the action was objectively groundless or frivolous/bad-faith. He did not challenge particular cost items or the reasonableness of the 998 offers.
The trial court denied the motion to strike, concluding Williams did not preclude section 998 cost-shifting and that Government Code section 3309.5 (POBRA) is a sanctions provision that does not displace section 998 or section 1032. The court awarded the requested costs.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding section 998 mandated cost-shifting against a plaintiff who rejected statutory offers and failed to obtain a more favorable result, and Williams/POBRA did not bar such an award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams (FEHA discretionary-fee rule) prevents a prevailing defendant from recovering costs under CCP § 998 when plaintiff brought intertwined FEHA claims	Williams requires courts to deny costs to prevailing FEHA defendants unless the plaintiff's claim was objectively groundless; therefore costs should be barred unless that standard is met	Section 998 is a separate, competing statutory exception to § 1032 that mandates cost-shifting when a plaintiff rejects a reasonable offer and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment; Williams does not eliminate § 998 relief	Rejected plaintiff's argument: § 998 cost-shifting applies; Williams does not preclude § 998 awards and would undermine settlement incentives if applied to nullify § 998
Whether POBRA or Gov. Code § 3309.5 prohibits ordinary cost awards to prevailing public safety defendants except via sanctions for frivolous or bad-faith suits	Section 3309.5 limits recovery to sanction-type awards for bad-faith or frivolous POBRA suits and thus precludes ordinary cost awards absent frivolous/bad-faith findings	§ 3309.5 is a sanction provision that does not create a separate rule displacing § 998 or § 1032; it does not categorically bar ordinary costs awarded under § 998	Rejected plaintiff's argument: § 3309.5 does not bar ordinary cost awards in presence of § 998; it authorizes sanctions but does not create an exception to § 998 or § 1032

Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., 61 Cal.4th 97 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (FEHA authorizes discretionary fees and costs; prevailing defendants should not receive fees/costs unless action was objectively without foundation)
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (standard for awarding fees to prevailing defendants in civil rights cases: only if plaintiff's suit was objectively unreasonable)
Scott Co. v. Blount Inc., 20 Cal.4th 1103 (Cal. 1999) (§ 998 modifies the general rule of § 1032 and encourages settlement by shifting costs when offers are rejected)
Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.4th 507 (Cal. 2006) (interpretation of § 998 including discretion to award expert costs incurred pre-offer under prior law)
Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc., 237 Cal.App.4th 1040 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (analysis limiting FEHA-defendant cost recovery to costs allocable to non-FEHA claims unless FEHA claims were frivolous)