Phillips v. Fulton-El Camino Recreation & Parks District
Filing
53
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/27/11 DENYING 43 Motion for Attorney Fees. (Meuleman, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
JEFFREY PHILLIPS
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FULTON-EL CAMINO RECREATION &
)
PARKS DISTRICT and DOES 1 to 50, )
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 2:09-CV-01933 JAM-EFB
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT‟S
MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS
17
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Fulton-El
18
Camino Recreation & Parks District‟s (“Defendant”) Motion for Fees
19
and Costs (Doc. #43).
20
opposes the motion.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Phillips (“Plaintiff”)
1
21
I.
22
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleged that he was improperly notified of his
23
24
separation from Defendant as a volunteer part-time Ranger.
25
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in the California Superior
26
27
28
1
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for June 1, 2011.
1
1
Court for Sacramento County alleging two causes of action:
2
(1) violation of Plaintiff‟s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights;
3
and (2) violation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of
4
Rights Act, California Government Code Section 3300, et seq.
5
(“POBRA”).
6
Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication.
7
hearing on Defendant‟s Summary Judgment Motion on March 23, 2011.
8
After considering the briefs and oral arguments, the Court granted
9
Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant on both causes of
Defendant removed the action to this Court and filed a
The Court held a
10
action.
Defendant filed this motion requesting $9,179.61 in costs
11
and $47,608.50 in fees.
12
to Alter/Amend Judgment per Rule 59(E) FRCP (Doc. #45), the Court
13
delayed deciding the instant motion until it disposed of the Motion
14
to Alter/Amend Judgment.
15
Amend/Alter the Judgment (Doc. #52).
Since Plaintiff intended to file a Motion
The Court denied Plaintiff‟s Motion to
16
17
18
19
20
II.
A.
OPINION
Legal Standard
1.
Attorneys‟ Fees and Costs
Defendant seeks fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)
21
and California Government Code § 3309.5(d)(2).
A prevailing
22
defendant is entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988
23
“only when the plaintiff‟s claims are unfounded, frivolous,
24
meritless or vexatious.”
25
Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978)
26
(internal citations omitted).
27
meritless, or vexatious lawsuit is one where “the result appears
28
obvious or the arguments are wholly without merit.”
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal
An unfounded, frivolous,
2
Galen v.
1
County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 666 (9th Cir. 2007).
2
Similarly, Government Code section 3309.5(d)(2) allows a court
3
to award sanctions by way of reasonable expenses, including
4
attorneys‟ fees, if the court finds that the action was in “bad
5
faith or frivolous.”
6
B.
Claims for Relief
7
Defendant argues that as the prevailing party, it is entitled
8
to reasonable attorneys‟ fees and costs because Plaintiff‟s action
9
was frivolous and conducted in bad faith.
Defendant argues there
10
was no basis in law for Plaintiff‟s Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth
11
Amendment, or POBRA claims.
12
Plaintiff‟s decision to file this action and his behavior during
13
the litigation as acting in bad faith.
14
lawsuit was brought to harass and annoy Defendant; the Complaint
15
pled violation of the Fifth Amendment, despite the fact no
16
interaction with the federal government was alleged; Plaintiff
17
repeatedly refused to provide documents during discovery; and he
18
rejected settlement offers.
19
Defendant also characterizes
Defendant alleges the
Plaintiff concedes that Defendant is the prevailing party and
20
that its attorney fee rates are reasonable.
Plaintiff argues that
21
his action was not frivolous because at the time of his separation
22
of employment, Plaintiff believed he was a tenured employee and he
23
characterizes his Fourteenth Amendment job abandonment claim as a
24
watershed legal issue.
25
its conduct during discovery as evidence of the frivolity of the
26
lawsuit.
Plaintiff asks the Court not to consider
27
28
3
1
2
1.
Frivolousness
As discussed supra, a defendant may only collect fees if the
3
plaintiff‟s claims are “groundless, without foundation, frivolous,
4
or unreasonable.”
5
(9th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
6
defeat summary judgment does not mean that [Plaintiff‟s] claims
7
were groundless at the outset.
Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1195
The “inability to
Id. at 1196.
8
The Court‟s decision granting Defendant‟s motion for
9
summary judgment reflects its view that Plaintiff‟s claims had
10
little legal support.
However, the Court does not believe that
11
this case was so frivolous that it should award attorneys fees
12
to Defendant.
13
Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and POBRA.
14
watershed legal issue, Plaintiff made a weak, yet plausible
15
argument that his separation from his volunteer position created
16
a badge of infamy, violating a protectable property interest.
17
Plaintiff‟s POBRA claim also was not completely lacking in
18
merit.
19
Court to extend POBRA‟s protections to volunteers, Plaintiff was
20
able to cite to some authority in support of his arguments on
21
this claim.
22
stage and on his motion to alter/amend, Defendant and the Court
23
must “resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc
24
reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not
25
ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or
26
without foundation.”
27
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff‟s claims were not
28
groundless, frivolous or unreasonable.
Plaintiff‟s Complaint alleged violations of the
While not a
While Plaintiff was unsuccessful in persuading this
Even though Plaintiff lost at the summary judgment
Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 421-22.
4
1
2
3
4
5
2.
Bad Faith
For purposes of imposing sanctions under the inherent
power of the court, a finding of bad faith does not
require that the legal and factual basis for the
action prove totally frivolous; where a litigant is
substantially motivated by vindictiveness, obduracy,
or mala fides, the assertion of a colorable claim will
not bar the assessment of attorney's fees.
6
Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal
7
citations omitted).
8
„precede any sanction under the court's inherent powers.‟”
9
(quoting Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980)).
10
“A specific finding of bad faith ... must
Id.
Defendant‟s argument that Plaintiff filed this action in bad
11
faith is unpersuasive.
Defendant‟s evidence in support of its
12
contention that Plaintiff brought this case in a bad faith effort
13
to harass and annoy Defendant is insufficient to convince this
14
Court that attorneys fees should be awarded on this basis.
15
Defendant‟s frustration is understandable, the Court‟s review of
16
this record does not demonstrate that Plaintiff was motivated by
17
vindictiveness, obduracy, or mala fides.
18
finds that Plaintiff did not conduct the litigation in bad faith.
While
Accordingly, the Court
19
20
III. ORDER
21
For the reasons set forth above,
22
Defendant‟s Motion for fees and costs is DENIED.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated:
June 27, 2011
____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
5
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
