Public Sector Case Notes
| Citation | Vol. 31 No. 6 |
| Publication year | 2017 |
| Author | By Jannah Manansala and Kerianne Steele |
By Jannah Manansala and Kerianne Steele
Jannah Manansala is a shareholder at Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld in Alameda. She represents labor unions and workers in both the public and private sector in state and federal court, in arbitration, and in administrative hearings. In addition to practicing law, she has taught Labor Policy and Law at Cal State University, East Bay. Kerianne Steele is also a shareholder of the firm. She provides general representation to labor unions, primarily in the public sector.
Sviridov v. City of San Diego, 14 Cal. App. 5th 514 (2017)
In an action asserting claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the California Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA), the trial court awarded the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department (collectively, City) costs in the amount of $90,387 pursuant to Civil Procedure Code § 998.
The plaintiff Aleksei E. Sviridov argued on appeal that the judgment against him was barred by Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., 61 Cal. 4th 97 (2015), which held that costs should not be awarded under Government Code § 12965(b) to a defendant against an unsuccessful FEHA plaintiff "unless the plaintiff brought or continued litigating the action without an objective basis for believing it had potential merit." Sviridov asserted that his claims failed due to a "failure of proof," not because his action was "completely unreasonable, frivolous or meritless," and therefore an award of costs relating to the City's defense of his FEHA claims was prohibited. Sviridov also argued that POBRA prohibits an award of costs for defense against his claim under that Act, unless the action was frivolous or brought in bad faith. The City asserted it was entitled to costs under Civil Procedure Code § 998(c)(1).
The court of appeal recognized (1) the general rule under Civil Procedure Code § 1032(b) that, "[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding"; (2) the California Supreme Court's ruling in Williams that "a prevailing defendant . . . should not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was objectively without foundation when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so"; and (3) Civil Procedure Code § 998(c)(1), which states, "[i]f an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer." The court also observed that § 998 is itself an exception to § 1032's provision that only a prevailing party is entitled to costs.
The court rejected Sviridov's claim that Williams precluded the City from recovering as a prevailing party, because he failed to support that claim with "reasoned argument and citations to authority." Thus, the court treated the claim as waived or forfeited. (The City, on the other hand, contended that Williams did not apply because the court properly awarded it costs pursuant to § 998.)
The court further ruled that Government Code § 3309.5 does not preclude an award of costs as to the POBRA action, particularly in light of the applicability of Civil Procedure Code § 998 and the language in Government Code § 3309.5(d)(2), which plainly establishes that the sanctions statute does not create "rules or standards" for POBRA...
To continue reading
Request your trial