Filed 6/8/21 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MARIA MORENO, F078400 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. MCV064243) v. PARMJIT SINGH BASSI et al., OPINION Defendants and Appellants. MARIA MORENO, F078593 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PARMJIT SINGH BASSI et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Madera County. James E. Oakley, Judge. * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts III., IV., V. and VI. of the Discussion. California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Estella M. Cisneros and Anali Cortez for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Kevin G. Little and Kevin G. Little for Defendants, Appellants, and Respondents. -ooOoo- A jury awarded plaintiff Marina Moreno $16 in unpaid minimum wages and $16 in liquidated damages and found against her on causes of action alleging she had been raped by her employer. In posttrial proceedings, the trial court determined plaintiff was the prevailing party for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 10321 and awarded her $19,523 in costs. The court also awarded plaintiff $3.20 in attorney fees based on the formula in section 1031 that multiples the wages recovered by 20 percent. Plaintiff’s appeal and defendant’s cross-appeal raise issues about the award of costs and the award of attorney fees. We note that the Legislature addressed cases involving a small award of damages and a relatively large amount of costs by enacting section 1033. It allows a trial court to reduce the costs otherwise recoverable as a matter of right under section 1032 “where the prevailing party recovers a judgment that could have been rendered in a limited civil case.” (§ 1033, subd. (a).) Defendant asserts the costs awarded to plaintiff could have been reduced under section 1033. However, defendant’s primary argument asserts Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b) bars plaintiff’s recovery of many of the costs. That provision controls the award of costs on claims alleging violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). In this case, plaintiff lost all the FEHA claims, lost some non-FEHA claims, and prevailed on some non-FEHA claims. In such a situation, the award of costs is governed by the interaction of section 1032 and Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b). 1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. We conclude Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b) bars plaintiff from recovering the costs caused solely by the inclusion of the FEHA causes of action in this lawsuit. The other costs incurred in the lawsuit are recoverable under section 1032, subject to the discretionary exception in section 1033, subdivision (a). On remand, the trial court must determine which cost items, if any, are barred by Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b) before entering an award in accordance with sections 1032 and 1033. The parties’ dispute over attorney fees requires an interpretation of section …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals