Christiansburg standard in California

2025(Ibid.) The Supreme Court in Travis also considered a number of other statutes permitting fee awards for prevailing defendants to which courts applied the Christiansburg standard, including: (1) the California Fair 19 Employment and Housing Act (§ 12900 et seq.) (Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97, 110 (Williams); (2) the federal Clean Water Act (Browder v. City of Moab (10th Cir. 2005) 427 F.3d 717, 723 ); (3) the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Lane v. Residential Funding Corp. (9th Cir. 2003) 323 F.3d 739 , 748); (4) the Americans with Disabilities A

2025(Ibid.) The Supreme Court in Travis also considered a number of other statutes permitting fee awards for prevailing defendants to which courts applied the Christiansburg standard, including: (1) the California Fair 19 Employment and Housing Act (§ 12900 et seq.) (Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97, 110 (Williams); (2) the federal Clean Water Act (Browder v. City of Moab (10th Cir. 2005) 427 F.3d 717, 723 ); (3) the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Lane v. Residential Funding Corp. (9th Cir. 2003) 323 F.3d 739 , 748); (4) the Americans with Disabilities A

2018Both sides appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed. *78 No one contended on appeal the FEHA action was frivolous. ( Mangano, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 951, fn. 10 , 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 526 .) With that understanding, Mangano held the Christiansburg standard applied and there was no "persuasive argument for allowing the application of section 998 to supplant the established standard that seeks to deter frivolous suits while providing adequate *82 support and incentive for meritorious actions." ( Id. at p. 951, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 526 .) Accordingly, it affirmed the trial court's denial of an award of a

2018Both sides appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed. *78 No one contended on appeal the FEHA action was frivolous. ( Mangano, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 951, fn. 10 , 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 526 .) With that understanding, Mangano held the Christiansburg standard applied and there was no "persuasive argument for allowing the application of section 998 to supplant the established standard that seeks to deter frivolous suits while providing adequate *82 support and incentive for meritorious actions." ( Id. at p. 951, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 526 .) Accordingly, it affirmed the trial court's denial of an award of a

2017(See *1016 Cummings, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 1387 , 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 53 [applying Christiansburg rule to FEHA fee shifting provision in 1992]; Stats. 2000, ch. 1049, §§ 7.5, 11 [extending FEHA liability to individual defendants, effective January 1, 2001]; see also Flannery, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 578 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 809 , 28 P.3d 860 [statutory language is not considered in isolation; rather, the court must "look to 'the entire substance of the statute ... in order to determine the scope and purpose of the provision' "] ); Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629 ,

2017(See *1016 Cummings, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 1387 , 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 53 [applying Christiansburg rule to FEHA fee shifting provision in 1992]; Stats. 2000, ch. 1049, §§ 7.5, 11 [extending FEHA liability to individual defendants, effective January 1, 2001]; see also Flannery, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 578 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 809 , 28 P.3d 860 [statutory language is not considered in isolation; rather, the court must "look to 'the entire substance of the statute ... in order to determine the scope and purpose of the provision' "] ); Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629 ,

2018In Holman , the Court of Appeal held a trial court has discretion to award the prevailing employer in a *79 FEHA case expert witness fees under section 998 without first establishing the plaintiff's case was frivolous. ( Id. at p. 280, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 554 .) Where the FEHA action is not frivolous, however, the trial court must "scale" an award of expert witness fees to take into account the plaintiff's economic resources. ( Id. at pp. 283-284, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 554 .) Although it predated Williams, Holman presciently "assume[d] for purposes of this appeal that ... the Christiansburg standard app

2018In Holman , the Court of Appeal held a trial court has discretion to award the prevailing employer in a *79 FEHA case expert witness fees under section 998 without first establishing the plaintiff's case was frivolous. ( Id. at p. 280, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 554 .) Where the FEHA action is not frivolous, however, the trial court must "scale" an award of expert witness fees to take into account the plaintiff's economic resources. ( Id. at pp. 283-284, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 554 .) Although it predated Williams, Holman presciently "assume[d] for purposes of this appeal that ... the Christiansburg standard app

2017In his reply brief, Routt notified this court that he was abandoning this fact-based argument "in light of further review of the record, and in recognition of the strict standard of appellate review." As the Williams court noted, numerous appellate decisions had followed Cummings in applying the Christiansburg rule to attorney fee motions by prevailing FEHA defendants. ( Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 103 , 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 826 , 347 P.3d 976 ; see, e.g., Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399 , 419-420, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 56 ( Leek ); Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp . (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1467

2017In his reply brief, Routt notified this court that he was abandoning this fact-based argument "in light of further review of the record, and in recognition of the strict standard of appellate review." As the Williams court noted, numerous appellate decisions had followed Cummings in applying the Christiansburg rule to attorney fee motions by prevailing FEHA defendants. ( Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 103 , 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 826 , 347 P.3d 976 ; see, e.g., Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399 , 419-420, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 56 ( Leek ); Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp . (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1467

2017In his reply brief, Routt notified this court that he was abandoning this fact-based argument "in light of further review of the record, and in recognition of the strict standard of appellate review." As the Williams court noted, numerous appellate decisions had followed Cummings in applying the Christiansburg rule to attorney fee motions by prevailing FEHA defendants. ( Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 103 , 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 826 , 347 P.3d 976 ; see, e.g., Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399 , 419-420, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 56 ( Leek ); Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp . (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1467

2017In his reply brief, Routt notified this court that he was abandoning this fact-based argument "in light of further review of the record, and in recognition of the strict standard of appellate review." As the Williams court noted, numerous appellate decisions had followed Cummings in applying the Christiansburg rule to attorney fee motions by prevailing FEHA defendants. ( Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 103 , 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 826 , 347 P.3d 976 ; see, e.g., Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399 , 419-420, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 56 ( Leek ); Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp . (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1467

2017In his reply brief, Routt notified this court that he was abandoning this fact-based argument "in light of further review of the record, and in recognition of the strict standard of appellate review." As the Williams court noted, numerous appellate decisions had followed Cummings in applying the Christiansburg rule to attorney fee motions by prevailing FEHA defendants. ( Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 103 , 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 826 , 347 P.3d 976 ; see, e.g., Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399 , 419-420, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 56 ( Leek ); Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp . (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1467

2017In his reply brief, Routt notified this court that he was abandoning this fact-based argument "in light of further review of the record, and in recognition of the strict standard of appellate review." As the Williams court noted, numerous appellate decisions had followed Cummings in applying the Christiansburg rule to attorney fee motions by prevailing FEHA defendants. ( Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 103 , 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 826 , 347 P.3d 976 ; see, e.g., Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399 , 419-420, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 56 ( Leek ); Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp . (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1467

2017In his reply brief, Routt notified this court that he was abandoning this fact-based argument "in light of further review of the record, and in recognition of the strict standard of appellate review." As the Williams court noted, numerous appellate decisions had followed Cummings in applying the Christiansburg rule to attorney fee motions by prevailing FEHA defendants. ( Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 103 , 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 826 , 347 P.3d 976 ; see, e.g., Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399 , 419-420, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 56 ( Leek ); Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp . (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1467

2017In his reply brief, Routt notified this court that he was abandoning this fact-based argument "in light of further review of the record, and in recognition of the strict standard of appellate review." As the Williams court noted, numerous appellate decisions had followed Cummings in applying the Christiansburg rule to attorney fee motions by prevailing FEHA defendants. ( Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 103 , 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 826 , 347 P.3d 976 ; see, e.g., Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399 , 419-420, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 56 ( Leek ); Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp . (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1467

2015We agree with the Romans that the trial court has discretion to deny or reduce a cost award to a prevailing FEHA defendant when a large award would impose undue hardship on the plaintiff — the financial circumstances of the losing plaintiff and the impact of the award on that party are relevant circumstances in determining whether the costs to be awarded are “reasonable in amount” within the meaning of Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), and section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(3). 21 (See Holman v. Altana Pharma US, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 262, 283-285 [111 *1063 Cal.Rptr.3d 554] [

2013(Knight, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 135 .) It said: “Unlike the court in Cummings, which did not focus on costs, and simply assumed they should be treated in the same manner as attorney fees, the Perez court explained that the policies justifying the Christiansburg standard for awarding attorney fees to a prevailing defendant do not persuasively apply to the award to such a party of costs.

2018Both sides appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed. *78 No one contended on appeal the FEHA action was frivolous. ( Mangano, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 951, fn. 10 , 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 526 .) With that understanding, Mangano held the Christiansburg standard applied and there was no "persuasive argument for allowing the application of section 998 to supplant the established standard that seeks to deter frivolous suits while providing adequate *82 support and incentive for meritorious actions." ( Id. at p. 951, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 526 .) Accordingly, it affirmed the trial court's denial of an award of a

2018Both sides appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed. *78 No one contended on appeal the FEHA action was frivolous. ( Mangano, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 951, fn. 10 , 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 526 .) With that understanding, Mangano held the Christiansburg standard applied and there was no "persuasive argument for allowing the application of section 998 to supplant the established standard that seeks to deter frivolous suits while providing adequate *82 support and incentive for meritorious actions." ( Id. at p. 951, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 526 .) Accordingly, it affirmed the trial court's denial of an award of a

2017In his reply brief, Routt notified this court that he was abandoning this fact-based argument "in light of further review of the record, and in recognition of the strict standard of appellate review." As the Williams court noted, numerous appellate decisions had followed Cummings in applying the Christiansburg rule to attorney fee motions by prevailing FEHA defendants. ( Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 103 , 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 826 , 347 P.3d 976 ; see, e.g., Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399 , 419-420, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 56 ( Leek ); Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp . (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1467

2017In his reply brief, Routt notified this court that he was abandoning this fact-based argument "in light of further review of the record, and in recognition of the strict standard of appellate review." As the Williams court noted, numerous appellate decisions had followed Cummings in applying the Christiansburg rule to attorney fee motions by prevailing FEHA defendants. ( Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 103 , 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 826 , 347 P.3d 976 ; see, e.g., Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399 , 419-420, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 56 ( Leek ); Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp . (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1467

2013Several federal courts themselves have refused to apply the Christiansburg test for recovery of defense attorney fees to ordinary litigation expenses. [Citations.]” ( Perez, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at pp. 680-681, fn. omitted.) The Perez court concluded that “ordinary litigation costs are recoverable by a prevailing FEHA defendant even if the lawsuit was not frivolous, groundless, or unreasonable.” (Perez, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 681 .) Accordingly, it affirmed the trial court’s decision and remanded to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion on the county’s request for costs.

2013Several federal courts themselves have refused to apply the Christiansburg test for recovery of defense attorney fees to ordinary litigation expenses. [Citations.]” ( Perez, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at pp. 680-681, fn. omitted.) The Perez court concluded that “ordinary litigation costs are recoverable by a prevailing FEHA defendant even if the lawsuit was not frivolous, groundless, or unreasonable.” (Perez, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 681 .) Accordingly, it affirmed the trial court’s decision and remanded to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion on the county’s request for costs.

2017(See *1016 Cummings, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 1387 , 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 53 [applying Christiansburg rule to FEHA fee shifting provision in 1992]; Stats. 2000, ch. 1049, §§ 7.5, 11 [extending FEHA liability to individual defendants, effective January 1, 2001]; see also Flannery, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 578 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 809 , 28 P.3d 860 [statutory language is not considered in isolation; rather, the court must "look to 'the entire substance of the statute ... in order to determine the scope and purpose of the provision' "] ); Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629 ,

2017(See *1016 Cummings, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 1387 , 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 53 [applying Christiansburg rule to FEHA fee shifting provision in 1992]; Stats. 2000, ch. 1049, §§ 7.5, 11 [extending FEHA liability to individual defendants, effective January 1, 2001]; see also Flannery, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 578 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 809 , 28 P.3d 860 [statutory language is not considered in isolation; rather, the court must "look to 'the entire substance of the statute ... in order to determine the scope and purpose of the provision' "] ); Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 629 ,

2025(Ibid.) The Supreme Court in Travis also considered a number of other statutes permitting fee awards for prevailing defendants to which courts applied the Christiansburg standard, including: (1) the California Fair 19 Employment and Housing Act (§ 12900 et seq.) (Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97, 110 (Williams); (2) the federal Clean Water Act (Browder v. City of Moab (10th Cir. 2005) 427 F.3d 717, 723 ); (3) the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Lane v. Residential Funding Corp. (9th Cir. 2003) 323 F.3d 739 , 748); (4) the Americans with Disabilities A

2025(Ibid.) The Supreme Court in Travis also considered a number of other statutes permitting fee awards for prevailing defendants to which courts applied the Christiansburg standard, including: (1) the California Fair 19 Employment and Housing Act (§ 12900 et seq.) (Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97, 110 (Williams); (2) the federal Clean Water Act (Browder v. City of Moab (10th Cir. 2005) 427 F.3d 717, 723 ); (3) the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Lane v. Residential Funding Corp. (9th Cir. 2003) 323 F.3d 739 , 748); (4) the Americans with Disabilities A

2023Cir. 1982) 683 F.2d 435, 439 [declaring that the Christiansburg standard generally applies to fee awards under the Voting Rights Act, except “where the procedural posture of a particular case renders the general rule inapplicable”]; Consol.

2023Cir. 1982) 683 F.2d 435, 439 [declaring that the Christiansburg standard generally applies to fee awards under the Voting Rights Act, except “where the procedural posture of a particular case renders the general rule inapplicable”]; Consol.

2011(Molski, at p. 791.) The plaintiff argued for application of the standard under the ADA, where an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party is discretionary ( 42 U.S.C. § 12205 ; Hubbard, supra, 554 F.3d at p. 744 ), but a prevailing defendant may only be awarded fees “ ‘upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.’ ” (Summers v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc. (9th Cir. 1997) 127 F.3d 1150, 1154 , quoting Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978) 434 U.S. 412, 421 [ 54 L.Ed.2d 648 , 98 S.Ct. 694 ] (Christiansburg).) 12 Molski rejected application

2011(Molski, at p. 791.) The plaintiff argued for application of the standard under the ADA, where an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party is discretionary ( 42 U.S.C. § 12205 ; Hubbard, supra, 554 F.3d at p. 744 ), but a prevailing defendant may only be awarded fees “ ‘upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.’ ” (Summers v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc. (9th Cir. 1997) 127 F.3d 1150, 1154 , quoting Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978) 434 U.S. 412, 421 [ 54 L.Ed.2d 648 , 98 S.Ct. 694 ] (Christiansburg).) 12 Molski rejected application