D.R. v. Contra Costa County CA

Background

Contra Costa County and Tasha Mizel, referred to together as the County Defendants, asked the court to award $16,650 in attorney’s fees against plaintiff Cristina Ramirez. The request covered some of Ramirez’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and her state-law claims. The court had entered judgment on April 18, 2024. The fee motion was filed on May 2, 2024.

Federal Claims

The County Defendants sought fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which permits a prevailing defendant in a civil-rights case to recover fees only when the plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

The court denied this part of the request. Ramirez’s claim concerning an allegedly unlawful seizure was not decided on the merits. Instead, the court had previously resolved it because Ramirez did not timely amend her complaint to identify the person or persons who allegedly carried out the seizure. The court found that this failure did not make the claim frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, particularly because Ramirez had submitted some evidence supporting the allegation.

The court reached the same conclusion about Ramirez’s claim that Mizel caused D.R.’s remains to be cremated without Ramirez’s permission. Ramirez submitted evidence supporting that allegation, although she submitted it after the fee motion was filed. The court stated that the delay was arguably the result of excusable neglect and found that the claim was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

The court also noted that the record did not suggest Ramirez had the ability to pay the requested award or any portion of it. The record indicated that she received general assistance and lacked a permanent residence.

State-Law Claims

The County Defendants also sought fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1038. That statute allows a prevailing defendant in an action under the California Government Claims Act to seek fees when the plaintiff’s state-law claims were not brought in good faith and with reasonable cause. The statute requires the fee motion to be filed before the jury is discharged or judgment is entered.

No jury was impaneled, and judgment was entered on April 18, 2024. Because the County Defendants did not file their fee motion until May 2, 2024, the court held that the request under § 1038 was untimely.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for attorney’s fees under both 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 1038. The opinion does not award fees to either side.