Turner v. Ass'n of American Medical Colleges
193 Cal. App. 4th 1047
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Turner I held that accommodations for reading disabilities on the MCAT are not required under the Unruh Act or the DPA.
- Plaintiffs Turner et al. filed a class action in California asserting disability-related testing accommodations and sought injunctive relief and fees.
- The trial court granted class certification limited to applying California law and awarded fees to plaintiffs as prevailing parties under section 55.
- On remand, defendant sought fees under section 55 for hours spent defending claims under sections 52 and 54.3, arguing intertwinement with the section 55 claim.
- The trial court rejected the request, harmonizing the statutes to deny defendant fees for intertwined hours, citing unilateral fee-shifting for plaintiffs under 52 and 54.3.
- The Court of Appeal held that a prevailing defendant may not recover under section 55 for hours that are inextricably intertwined with defending claims under sections 52 and 54.3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a prevailing defendant recover under §55 for intertwined hours? | Turner; §55 would permit bilateral recovery for all hours incurred. | Defendant; §55 should allow fees for intertwined hours as prevailing party. | No; §52 and §54.3 create an exception to §55 by implication. |
| Do §52 and §54.3 preclude §55 fees for intertwined defense work? | Plaintiffs maintain unilateral fee provisions govern only plaintiffs’ fees. | Defendant contends §55 remains applicable to all hours spent; no exception implied. | Yes; §52 and §54.3 preclude §55 fees for intertwined hours. |
| Should §55 be interpreted by legislative history and public policy to create an implied exception? | Plaintiffs rely on statutory purpose to encourage enforcement by plaintiffs. | Defendant argues no implied exception; §55 intended to discourage meritless suits. | Yes; there is an implied exception to §55. |
| Is there a general-versus-specific statute conflict requiring implied amendment/rule to harmonize? | No reconciliation under broad fee-shifting provisions. | Statutes cannot be harmonized; later statute governs. | Yes; §52 and §54.3 control over §55 in this context. |
| Does class-action posture affect the interpretation of fee-shifting conflicts? | Class representatives seek broad relief under multiple statutes. | Class members’ interests require encouraging enforcement; fee rule should deter duplicative suits. | Yes; concerns counsel against a §55-wide award affecting unnamed class members. |
Key Cases Cited
- Covenant Mutual Ins. Co. v. Young, 179 Cal.App.3d 318 (Cal. App. 1986) (unilateral fee-shifting serves public policy; reciprocity rejected)
- Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 119 Cal.App.4th 498 (Cal. App. 2004) (fee rules against overlapping contractual claims; emphasis on public policy)
- Molski v. Arciero Wine Group, 164 Cal.App.4th 786 (Cal. App. 2008) (Christiansburg standard not adopted for §55; frivolousness not sole gatekeeper)
- Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 985 (Cal. 1998) (distinguishes conflicts of statutory costs; unilateral fee-shifting policy emphasized)
- Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc., 155 Cal.App.4th 254 (Cal. App. 2007) (standing differences between section 55 and damages under 54.3)
- McLaughlin v. State Bd. of Education, 75 Cal.App.4th 196 (Cal. App. 1999) (irreconcilable conflicts where later-enacted provisions prevail; amendment-by-implication)
- Mejia v. Reed, 31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003) (statutory interpretation; harmonizing multiple statutes)
- Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal.4th 661 (Cal. 2009) (liberal construction of Unruh Act; comparison to ADA; policy emphasis)