A California state Appeals Court has reversed a lower court’s decision awarding more than $20,000 in attorney fees to the plaintiff in a Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, concluding that the defendant did not receive enough notice and opportunity to be heard before the fee was awarded sua sponte as a discovery sanction.
The Background: The plaintiff filed a class-action against the defendant for violating the RFDCPA and the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, and the Appeals Court overturned the ruling.
- Back at the trial court level, the plaintiff revived a discovery motion and sought monetary sanctions against the defendant. The trial court partially granted the motion to impose sanctions, which the defendant appealed. The Appeals Court upheld that ruling.
- Back at the trial court level again, the plaintiff filed a motion for $26,580 in attorney fees. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to prevailing party attorney fees because the suit had not yet been resolved. While the trial court judge agreed that prevailing party attorney fees was premature, the lower court, without any prompting (sua sponte), determined the defendant misused the discovery process and imposed sanctions of $20,950, which the defendant appealed.
The (Latest) Appeal: Ultimately, the trial court’s decision to impose attorney fees that were incurred by the plaintiff defending an appeal rising out of a discovery dispute violated the defendant’s right to procedural due process, the Appeals Court ruled.
- “Considering the sizable sum of attorney fees at issue, neither [the plaintiff’s] briefing nor the hearing provided [the defendant] with adequate notice or an opportunity to respond to the imposition of sanctions under this novel theory,” the Appeals Court wrote.
