Sviridov v. City of San Diego
14 Cal. App. 5th 514
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Aleksei Sviridov, a former San Diego police officer, litigated claims including POBRA and FEHA after two terminations; earlier appeals resulted in reinstatement then reversal and remand directing judgment for the City.
- After remittitur the City sought $90,387.28 in costs, including about $70,000 tied to earlier summary judgment and prior awards.
- The City showed it had served three Code of Civil Procedure section 998 settlement offers waiving costs in exchange for dismissal; Sviridov rejected each offer.
- Sviridov moved to strike the bill of costs arguing Williams (FEHA discretionary-cost rule) and POBRA (Gov. Code § 3309.5) barred recovery of costs unless claims were frivolous or objectively groundless; he did not contest specific cost items or the reasonableness of the offers.
- The trial court denied the motion to strike, concluding Williams did not apply because the surviving claim at trial was POBRA and § 3309.5 does not bar ordinary costs, and awarded costs under section 998.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding section 998 entitled the City to costs and that Williams and § 3309.5 did not preclude a mandatory § 998 cost award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams (FEHA discretionary-cost rule) bars defendant from recovering costs when defendant prevailed under § 998 | Williams precludes awarding costs to a prevailing defendant for FEHA-related litigation unless plaintiff's claim was objectively groundless | § 998 requires mandatory cost-shifting where plaintiff rejected statutory offers and failed to obtain a more favorable judgment; Williams should not override § 998 | Rejected plaintiff's contention; § 998 cost-shifting applies and Williams does not categorically bar § 998 awards because that would undermine settlement policy |
| Whether POBRA (Gov. Code § 3309.5) prohibits ordinary cost awards absent frivolous or bad-faith conduct | § 3309.5 bars recovery of costs for POBRA defense unless action was frivolous or in bad faith | § 3309.5 is a sanction provision and does not create an exception to § 998 or to ordinary cost rules | Rejected plaintiff's contention; § 3309.5 is a sanctions statute and does not preclude ordinary costs, particularly where § 998 applies |
| Whether plaintiff forfeited challenge to § 998 | N/A — plaintiff argued broadly that Williams should apply to § 998 but offered no reasoned analysis | City argued appellee pointed to § 998 and evidence of offers; failure to brief is forfeiture | Court finds plaintiff forfeited the § 998 challenge by failing to develop argument; even on merits § 998 governs and supports the award |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., 61 Cal.4th 97 (California Supreme Court) (holds FEHA's discretionary fee-and-cost statute requires courts to apply Christiansburg standard to awards to prevailing defendants)
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. Supreme Court) (established standard limiting fee awards to prevailing defendants to cases that are objectively groundless or continued after that became clear)
- Scott Co. v. Blount Inc., 20 Cal.4th 1103 (California Supreme Court) (explains § 998 modifies the general prevailing-party cost rule in § 1032)
- Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc., 237 Cal.App.4th 1040 (Court of Appeal) (addresses allocation of costs between FEHA and non-FEHA claims under § 1032 and limits on recovery when FEHA claims are not frivolous)