iVines v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, 2024 WL 1751760 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)
Renee Vines filed an action against his former employer alleging discrimination and harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) based on his race and age; that he was retaliated against when he was wrongfully terminated after he complained about the discrimination and harassment; and that his employer failed to prevent this discrimination, harassment and retaliation. At trial, Vines only won on his claims for retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation. While the jury awarded plaintiff $70,200 in damages, in September 2019 his attorneys sought $809,681 in attorney’s fees. However, the trial court only awarded $129,540 in fees, which Vines successfully appealed. On remand, the trial court awarded Vines $518,162 in fees.
Vines then sought interest on the attorney’s fees dating from the 2019 award and applied for and obtained a renewal of the judgment in the amount of $138,454 (i.e., the additional interest). The employer filed a motion to vacate the renewal of judgment, which the trial court denied. The employer successfully appealed from the order denying its motion to vacate the renewal of judgment, challenging only the amount of interest on the award of attorney’s fees. Because the Court of Appeal reversed rather than modified the trial court’s original award of attorney’s fees, the interest on the attorney’s fees awarded should have run from the date of reversal, not the original date of the award. “Whether an appellate court’s disposition is a modification or a reversal depends on the substance and effect of the order … [b]ecause the effect of our opinion was to remand the matter for further hearing and factfinding necessary to determine an appropriate fee award, [our original opinion] was a reversal, not a modification.”
