Vines v. O'Reilly Auto Enter.

320 Cal.Rptr.3d 513

Renee VINES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant and Appellant.

B327821

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7.

Filed April 24, 2024

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen P. Pfahler, Judge. Reversed with directions. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PC058046)

Higgs Fletcher & Mack, John Morris, James M. Peterson, Derek W. Paradis and Steven M. Brunolli, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant.

Mayall Hurley, William J. Gorham III and Nicholas F. Scardigli, Stockton, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

SEGAL, Acting P. J.

INTRODUCTION

This appeal, the second in this litigation, is about interest on an award of statutory attorneys’ fees. In particular, whether interest on the award runs from the first, later-reversed attorneys’ fees order or the second, post-remand attorneys’ fees order. The answer depends on whether our opinion in the prior appeal was a modification (so that interest runs from the first order, which is what the prevailing plaintiff wants) or a reversal (so that interest runs from the second, which is what the defendant wants).

The line between modification and reversal, however, like that (for example) between a mandatory and prohibitory injunction, can be a little blurry. Here, however, we can safely draw that line. Our directions in the prior appeal required the trial court to do more than perform a pure mathematical computation or add or delete a category of fees; the trial court had to exercise its discretion to determine an appropriate award of attorneys’ fees. Therefore, our prior opinion was a reversal, not a modification, which means interest runs from the second attorneys’ fees award.

The case arises out of an employment dispute. Renee Vines sued his former employer, O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), alleging causes of action for race-and age-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. A jury found in his favor on his causes of action for retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation, but against him on his other causes of action. Although Vines asked for $253,417 in economic damages and $1.3 million to $2.3 million in noneconomic damages, the jury awarded him only $70,200.

Vines moved for $809,681.25 in statutory attorneys’ fees. On September 9, 2019 the trial court granted the motion, but awarded only $129,540.44 in fees, based in part on the court’s determination Vines’s unsuccessful discrimination and harassment causes of action were not closely related to or factually intertwined with his successful retaliation causes of action.

Vines appealed, and we reversed. We held the trial court erred in finding that, because the facts related to Vines’s (successful) retaliation causes of action arose after he complained about the discriminatory and harassing conduct, the (unsuccessful) discrimination and harassment causes of action were not related to the (successful) retaliation causes of action. Therefore, we concluded, the trial court erred in ruling Vines was not entitled to recover any fees he incurred pursuing his discrimination and harassment causes of action. (Vines v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 174, 185, 289 Cal.Rptr.3d 310 (Vines I).)

On remand the trial court on June 29, 2022 awarded Vines $518,161.77 in fees. O’Reilly paid the fee award, including postjudgment interest from June 29, 2022. Vines’s attorneys, however, wanted more; specifically, they wanted interest on the attorneys’ fees award from September 9, 2019, not June 29, 2022, which amounted to an additional $138,454.44 in interest.

Rather than asking the court to enter an amended judgment that included the award of attorneys’ fees plus additional interest or seeking an order for additional interest, Vines applied for and obtained a renewal of the judgment in the amount of $138,454.44 (i.e., the additional interest). O’Reilly filed a motion to vacate the renewal of judgment, which the trial court denied.

[1] O’Reilly appeals from the order denying its motion to vacate the renewal of judgment,¹ challenging only the amount of interest on the award of attorneys’ fees. O'Reilly argues that, because our decision in Vines I was a reversal, not a modification, of the trial court’s September 9, 2019 order, interest on the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded should run from June 29, 2022, not September 9, 2019. We agree with O’Reilly, reverse the order denying O’Reilly’s motion to vacate the renewed judgment, and direct the trial court to grant the motion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. A Jury Finds in Favor of Vines on Some of His Causes of Action Under FEHA

In 2017 Vines filed this action against O’Reilly, alleging his supervisor and others discriminated against him and harassed him because of his age and race, in violation of FEHA. Vines also alleged O’Reilly terminated his employment after he complained about the harassment and discrimination. Vines asserted six causes of action: two for discrimination (race and age); two for harassment (race and age); one for retaliation; and one for failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

In 2018 O’Reilly moved for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication on each of Vines’s causes of action. The trial court granted the motion for summary adjudication on Vines’s causes of action for age discrimination and age harassment. The parties tried the remaining four causes of action (race discrimination, racial harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation) to a jury. The jury found against Vines on his causes of action for race discrimination and harassment, but in favor of Vines on his causes of action for retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The jury awarded Vines $70,200 in damages.

B. Vines Seeks $809,681.24 in Attorneys’ Fees, but the Trial Court Awards Him Only $129,540.44

Vines moved under Government Code section 12965, subdivision (c), for $809,681.25 in attorneys’ fees, based on a lodestar of $647,745, with a multiplier of 1.25 because of the difficulty of the case, the skills displayed by Vines’s attorneys, and the fact his attorneys represented him on a contingency basis. Vines argued his failure to prevail on his causes of action for discrimination and harassment did not warrant a downward (or fractional) lodestar adjustment because his causes of action for retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation (on which he prevailed) were related to his causes of action for unlawful discrimination and harassment (on which he did not).

In its opposition to Vines’s motion, O’Reilly argued that Vines was not the prevailing party, but that even if he was, the trial court should deny his fee request entirely because the amount of fees he requested was excessive given his limited success and the comparatively nominal jury award of $70,200. In the alternative, O’Reilly argued the trial court should substantially reduce the amount of fees because the unsuccessful causes of action were not related to the successful causes of action. O’Reilly also argued Vines had obtained only limited success in the litigation, not substantial relief or "excellent results." O'Reilly contended that Vines’s attorneys spent more than 75 percent of their time on the harassment and discrimination causes of action and that the court should not award fees for time spent litigating the unsuccessful causes of action. O’Reilly also argued the court should make additional reductions for counsel for Vines’s unreasonable billing entries, excessive hourly rates, and unreasonable settlement positions. O’Reilly also asked the court to reduce the lodestar figure to 33 percent of the requested amount, in part because Vines prevailed only on one-third of his causes of action.

The trial court awarded Vines $129,540.44 in attorneys’ fees. The court found that Vines was the prevailing party because he had succeeded on his causes of action for retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation and that the court had discretion to award Vines reasonable attorneys’ fees. As for O’Reilly’s contention Vines could only recover on his two successful retaliation-based causes of action, the court found Vines had "won substantial relief and obtained excellent results." The court, however, found Vines’s unsuccessful causes of action for discrimination and harassment were not sufficiently related to or factually intertwined with his successful causes of action for retaliation. The court agreed with O’Reilly the facts regarding the retaliation allegations occurred after the facts regarding the allegations of discrimination and harassment. Thus, based on the finding Vines’s attorneys spent 75 percent of their time on the unsuccessful causes of action for discrimination and harassment, the court ruled Vines was not entitled to recover 75 percent of the fees his attorneys charged.

The trial court also subtracted certain fees the court found were not reasonably incurred, reduced the hourly rate for Vines’s attorney Nicholas Scardigli, rejected O’Reilly’s argument Vines should not recover any fees incurred after O’Reilly’s settlement offer, and declined to apply an upward or downward multiplier to the lodestar figure. From Vines’s requested lodestar of $647,745, the court subtracted $129,583.23 for fees the court found were not reasonably incurred and for Scardigli’s reduced hourly rate, resulting in a subtotal of $518,161.77, which the court then reduced by 75 percent (to $129,540.44) to account for Vines’s failure to prevail on his discrimination and harassment causes of action.

C. Vines Appeals from the Attorneys’ Fees Order, and We Reverse

Vines appealed from the trial court’s order awarding him attorneys’ fees, arguing the court abused its discretion in reducing the fee award by 75 percent. Vines argued "the trial...