Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02209/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02209-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Check Cashing Stores
Defendant
California Check Cashing Stores, LLC
Defendant
Checksmart Financial, LLC
Defendant
Faiupu Myers
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FAIUPU MYERS, No. 2:13-CV-2209-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CALIFORNIA CHECK CASHING

STORES, LLC,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, who is represented by retained counsel, brings this civil action for

workplace discrimination. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the

undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). Final judgment was entered on August 10, 2015, following the grant of

summary judgment in favor of defendant and plaintiff has appealed. Pending before the court is

defendant’s motion (Doc. 42) for attorney’s fees. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

1

Case 2:13-cv-02209-CMK Document 54 Filed 01/14/16 Page 1 of 3
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

This action proceeded on plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 13), filed on

February 6, 2015, against defendant Checksmart Financial, LLC. Plaintiff asserted the 1

following claims:

Claim 1 Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

Claim 2 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Claim 3 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Claim4 Disability Discrimination

In the amended complaint, plaintiff claimed that, at all relevant times, defendant

was duly organized under the laws of California and/or authorized to do business in Butte

County, California, and that defendant was actually doing business in Butte County under the

name “California Check Cashing Stores.” Plaintiff stated that she began working for defendant

on March 16, 2007, as a teller/cashier at defendant’s Butte County location. Plaintiff stated that

her employment was pursuant to an “oral employment contract” and that, at all relevant times,

she performed her duties and obligations under that agreement. Plaintiff alleged that she was

terminated on April 3, 2012 “by Defendants at their address in 1959 Webster Street, Suite 200,

Oakland, California 94612" because of her pregnancy. According to plaintiff, her termination

violated public policy as well as California law, specifically the Fair Employment and Housing

Act (“FEHA”). 

Defendant seeks an award of attorney’s fees under the FEHA. Specifically,

California Government Code § 12965(b) provides that the court may, in its discretion, award

attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a FEHA action. Defendant cites Christiansburg Garment

Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 416-17 (1978), for the proposition that an award of attorney’s fees is

appropriate against the plaintiff where the “action was frivolous, unreasonable, without

Plaintiff sought and was granted leave to amend her original complaint in order to 1

substitute defendant Checksmart, LLC, for California Check Cashing Stores, LLC (“CCCS”),

which plaintiff states she inadvertently named in the original complaint. 

2

Case 2:13-cv-02209-CMK Document 54 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 3
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

foundation, or brought in bad faith.” According to defendant, the court’s order granting summary

judgment establishes that the action was frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation. 

Defendant notes the court’s finding that “the undisputed evidence establishes that plaintiff knew,

or at the very least should have known through the exercise of minimal diligence, that defendant

[Checksmart] was her employer, not CCCS.” Defendant seeks $87,067.50 in attorney’s fees. 

Plaintiff argues that imposing such an award against an indigent litigant would “seriously

discourage and impair discrimination cases.” 

2

Defendant’s position is persuasive. As the court determined in the order granting

summary judgment, the undisputed evidence in this case indicates that plaintiff knew or should

have known the identity of her employer when she initially filed suit in state court. For this

reason, her action was “without foundation” as against defendant. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion for attorney’s

fees (Doc. 42) is granted and defendant is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $87, 067.50.

DATED: January 13, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff does not argue that the amount requested is unreasonable. 

2

3

Case 2:13-cv-02209-CMK Document 54 Filed 01/14/16 Page 3 of 3