Rockymore v. Eurofins Donor & Product Testing, Inc.

Background

Defendant Eurofins Donor & Product Testing, Inc. sought attorney’s fees and costs from plaintiff Monette Rockymore. Rockymore had named Eurofins and several unincorporated divisions of the company as defendants. In an earlier motion to remand, the parties disputed whether the divisions’ citizenship affected diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that a corporation’s division is not an independent entity for that jurisdictional purpose. The issue arose again in Eurofins’s motion to dismiss, in which Eurofins argued that the divisions were not proper defendants. The court agreed and dismissed the divisions in five sentences of its order.

Fee request

Eurofins relied on California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, which allows a prevailing party to receive attorney’s fees when an action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when filed, or when the plaintiff continued litigating after it clearly became so. Eurofins argued that Rockymore’s attempt to name the divisions met that standard and requested more than $50,000 in fees and costs.

Court’s analysis

The court assumed, without deciding, that the dismissal of the divisions qualified as prevailing on a claim under the statute and that the request was properly presented at that stage. It nevertheless found that Rockymore’s conduct did not meet the high standard for a fee award. The motion to remand addressed whether the divisions’ citizenship counted for diversity-jurisdiction purposes, not whether they were proper defendants. The court also noted that Rockymore did not oppose dismissing the divisions and instead said she was “optimistic” that the dismissal could occur by agreement.

The court further held that, even if fees were warranted, Eurofins’s request for more than $50,000 was unreasonable because the issue was minor and discrete. The court stated that any fees would have to be attributable exclusively to frivolous claims rather than to the lawsuit as a whole. It concluded that Eurofins had wasted money and time on the fee motion and admonished Eurofins to give more considered attention to its advocacy in the future.

Disposition

The court vacated the hearing and denied Eurofins’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.