As noted previously here, it appears that California courts are becoming more liberal in granting attorney fees in employment cases, specifically contract cases. As we discussed, in the case of Otay River Constructors v. San Diego Expressway (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 796, the court held that a plaintiff who successfully opposed a motion to compel arbitration was entitled to attorney fees.
Now, in the case of Profit Concepts Management, Inc. v. Griffith (2008) ___ Cal. App. 4th ___ (Fourth Appellate Dist., No. G039077) the court held that a former employee who was dismissed from a suit for lack of jurisdiction was the prevailing party and thus entitled to attorney fees under the employment contract.
Greg Griffith, a resident of Oklahoma, was a former employee of Profit Concepts. A portion of his employment contract contained a provision stating that if Profit Concepts was the successful litigant in an action to enforce the terms of or an action resulting from the contract it was entitled to attorney fees. Under Civil Code §1717 this unilateral right to receive fees became reciprocal.
Following an employment dispute, Profit Concepts Management sued in California court for, among other things, breach of contract.
Griffith moved to quash service of a summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Profit Concepts did not oppose this motion, and the motion was granted. Griffith then moved for an award of attorney fees under the contract. The trial court granted this motion as well. Profit Concepts appealed.
The Court of Appeals upheld the grant of attorney fees. The Court reasoned that under CCP §1032(a)(4), when a party receives other than monetary relief, the trial court can determine who is the prevailing party. The trial court had found Griffith the prevailing party, so he was entitled to attorney fees under the contract.
-- Michael Sachs
