Procedural Posture

Appellant former employee sought review of an order from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), that denied his motion, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021.5, for attorney fees incurred in litigating his complaint for breach of contract, invasion of privacy and wrongful termination in violation of public policy against respondent former employer.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. understands CACI 1001

Overview

Appellant former employee sought review of order that denied his motion, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021.5, for attorney fees incurred in litigating his complaint for breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy against respondent former employer. The court on review held that the record supported the trial court’s conclusion that appellant’s personal financial stake in the outcome was not so disproportionate to the cost of litigation that the lawsuit would not have been brought without the additional incentive of an award of attorney fees. The court reasoned that the evidence supported the inference that, at the time important litigation decisions were being made, appellant’s expected recovery was always more than enough to warrant incurring the costs of litigation. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant failed to establish that his personal stake in the outcome was disproportionate to the financial burden of litigation. The order denying attorney fees was affirmed.

Outcome

The order denying appellant former employee’s request for attorney fees was affirmed because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant failed to establish that his personal stake in the outcome was disproportionate to the financial burden of litigation.