Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01055/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01055-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 Defendant also proposes that it should be awarded a minimum of $187,692, but it is unclear

from defendant's briefings and attachments what this amount represents. 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES—C-05-01055 RMW

SPT

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 3/6/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KENNETH E. DAUB,

Plaintiff,

v.

EAGLE TEST SYSTEMS, INC., a corporation,

and LEONARD FOXMAN,

Defendants.

No. C-05-01055 RMW

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

[Re Docket No. 89]

Before this court is defendant Eagle Test Systems, Inc.'s ("Eagle") motion for (1) all

attorney's fees incurred in the above-captioned action pursuant to either a contractual provision

between the parties or Cal. Gov't Code § 12965(b) or, in the alternative, (2) attorney's fees incurred

after the conclusion of plaintiff's depositions of Eagle employees in January 2006. Eagle asserts that

it incurred a total of $361,744.00 in attorney's fees for this action of which $251,428.50 was incurred

after January 2006.1

 Plaintiff Kenneth Daub ("Daub") initially filed a claim for breach of contract of

employment, fraud, promissory fraud, unjust enrichment, and wrongful termination of employment

based on age discrimination. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss all of plaintiff's claims

except for his claims for breach of contract and age discrimination. On December 21, 2006 the court

Case 5:05-cv-01055-RMW Document 102 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES—C-05-01055 RMW

SPT 2

granted defendant's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's remaining breach of contract and

age discrimination claims. 

Defendant argues that it has a right to attorney's fees based upon provision 10.1 of the

unexecuted "Incentive Bonus/Stock Option/Restriction/Non-Compete Agreement" among Daub,

Eagle, and Leonard Foxman. Provision 10.1 provides that Daub indemnify and hold harmless Eagle

from "all liability, damages, losses, claims, costs or expenses, whatsoever (including reasonable

attorneys' fees)" for certain misrepresentations, omissions, breaches of warranty, or nonperformance by Daub under the contract. Under Illinois law, which the parties agree governs the

contract, there must be specific statutory or contractual language providing for the award of

attorney's fees. See Qazi v. Ismail, 364 N.E.2d 595, 596-97 (1977). A court may not award

attorney's fees as a matter of contractual construction in the absence of specific language. Id. In this

action Daub alleged that Eagle failed to perform under the contract. The court does not find that

provision 10.1 provides for an award of attorney's fees to Eagle on the basis that it was the

prevailing party in this action. Defendant further urges the court to award attorney's fees under the

provision on the basis that plaintiff sued and sought attorney's fees under that same provision. 

However, defendant does not cite to any Illinois law that permits an award on such a basis.

Defendant also argues that it should be awarded attorney's fees pursuant to § 12965(b) of the

Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Cal. Gov't Code § 12940 et seq. Section 12965(b)

provides: "In actions brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award to the

prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including expert witness fees, except where the

action is filed by a public agency or a public official, acting in an official capacity." Cal. Gov't Code

§ 12965(b). A court may permit an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant pursuant to

§ 12965(b) "not routinely, not simply because he succeeds, but only where the action brought is

found to be unreasonable, frivolous, meritless or vexatious. . . . [T]he term 'meritless' is to be

understood as meaning groundless or without foundation, rather than simply that the plaintiff has

ultimately lost his case." Cummings v. Benco Bldg. Servs., 11 Cal. App. 4th 1383, 1387 (1992)

(citing Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978)) (additional citation

omitted). Here, although plaintiff's age discrimination claim was ultimately determined to be

Case 5:05-cv-01055-RMW Document 102 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES—C-05-01055 RMW

SPT 3

without merit, it was not frivolous. Accordingly, the court does not find an award of attorney's fees

to defendant is warranted even though it was the prevailing party in this FEHA action. See Mitchell

v. Office of Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, 805 F.2d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 1986) ("A

defendant stands in a different equitable position from that of a prevailing plaintiff.").

The parties have also filed separate letters with the court noting two clerical errors in the bill

of costs approved by the court. First, counsel for plaintiff notes that a 25% discount applied to the

costs of a deposition transcript was not inadvertently not deducted in the cost bill. Counsel for

defendant agrees that the cost bill inadvertently did not reflect this discount. Accordingly, the bill of

costs should be reduced by $451.88. Second, counsel for defendant notes that the court allowed

only the costs of two videotapes rather than four videotapes for the depositions of Leonard and Ted

Foxman. Because the depositions resulted in a total of four videotapes, defendant claims it is

entitled to the costs of all four tapes. It appears that in taxing the bill the court assumed that bill was

for two deposition tapes and two additional copies. Therefore, an additional $350 should be added

to the cost bill. Accordingly, the cost bill should be adjusted for a net reduction of $101.88.

Defendant's motion for attorney's fees is denied. The cost bill is hereby reduced by $101.88

making the cost bill total $7,044.82.

DATED: 3/5/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01055-RMW Document 102 Filed 03/06/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES—C-05-01055 RMW

SPT 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Robert Herbert Bohn Snr. bbohn@bohnlaw.com 

Counsel for Defendants:

Ryan James Larsen ryan.larsen@kattenlaw.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 3/6/07 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-01055-RMW Document 102 Filed 03/06/07 Page 4 of 4