2015-00186082-CU-WT

David Johnson vs. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Tax Costs

Filed By: Velez, Mark P.

Plaintiffs David Johnson’s and Teresa Landeros’ (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to tax costs is granted in its entirety.

On October 28, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for physical disability discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA, FEHA retaliation, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and wrongful

termination in violation of public policy.

On about July 3, 2018, Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s Motions for Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs was heard and granted by the Court. Thereafter, on about August 10, 2018, Defendant Kaiser served its Memorandum of Costs, requesting $1,582.77 against Johnson and $1,445.34 against Landeros.

Plaintiffs now move to tax costs pursuant Williams v Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97. Pursuant to Williams v Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., no costs can be awarded for defense of FEHA claims unless those claims were frivolous.

In opposition, Defendant Kaiser contends it is only seeking its costs associated with Plaintiffs’ non-FEHA claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Defendant Kaiser contends it is entitled to these costs pursuant to Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1040, which states “Unless the FEHA claim was frivolous, only those costs properly allocated to non-FEHA claims may be recovered by the prevailing defendant.” (Roman, supra, at 1062.) However, Roman also provides that the exception to the general rule for an award of costs to the prevailing party should apply to any other cause of action that is intertwined and inseparable with the FEHA claims that were brought against that party. (Roman, supra, at 1062, fn. 20.)

Here, Plaintiffs’ wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim was wholly derivative of and based upon the public policy set forth by FEHA. (See Complaint ¶¶ 67-68.) This claim is intertwined with and inseparable from the FEHA claims. Indeed, in the Court’s July 3, 2018, summary judgment order the Court specifically found “because there is no triable issue whether Kaiser committed any FEHA violation against Johnson, there is no triable issue whether it violated any public policy in relation to his termination.” As to Landos, the Court made a similar finding. Accordingly, the wrongful termination claims could not exist without the FEHA claims and Defendant Kaiser is, therefore, not entitled to costs.

The motion to tax is granted in its entirety. There is no basis to award Defendant Kaiser the costs requested in their Memorandum of Costs against Johnson or against Landeros. Both Memorandums of Costs are hereby stricken.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.