California Appellate Tracker

Sviridov v. City of San Diego

August 22, 2017

If a defendant in a Fair Employment and Housing Act lawsuit makes a section 998 offer that the plaintiff rejects and does not improve upon at trial, the defendant may recover its costs under section 998 notwithstanding the normal rule that a defendant cannot recover costs against the plaintiff in a FEHA action unless the action was objectively without foundation.

Ordinarily, a defendant cannot recover costs against the plaintiff in a FEHA action unless the action was objectively without foundation or became so and plaintiff continued to litigate it. However, if the defendant makes a CCP 998 that the plaintiff rejects and then does not better at trial, defendant may recover its costs under section 998 notwithstanding the normal rule about costs in FEHA actions. The Police Officer Bill of Rights Act also does not preclude an award of costs under CCP 998. POBRA contains a section allowing the trial court to award costs, including attorney fees, as sanctions for a frivolous or bad faith suit. (Gov. Code 3309.5(d)(2).) But that provision does not conflict with CCP 998 or preclude a cost award under that section.

California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1 (McConnell, P.J.); July 28, 2017 (published August 15, 2017); 2017 WL 3203271

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

I Agree

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

California Appellate Tracker

Sviridov v. City of San Diego

Categories

San Francisco

Severson & Werson

Orange County

Severson & Werson