Chaaban v. Wet Seal 1/31/12 CA4/3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » 4th Appellate District Division 3 » 2012 » Chaaban v. Wet Seal 1/31/12 CA4/3

State: California

Court: California Eastern District Court

Docket No: G044718

Case Date: 01/31/2012

Plaintiff: Chaaban

Defendant: Wet Seal 1/31/12 CA4/3

Preview:Filed 1/31/12

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

SALLY CHAABAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WET SEAL, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. G044718 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2008-00116172) OPINION

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Frederick P. Horn, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Sima Fard and Sima Fard for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Ryan D. McCortney and Matthew M. Sonne, for Defendants and Respondents.

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of section X.

INTRODUCTION Sally Chaaban appeals from an order denying her motion to tax costs after a jury trial in which defendants prevailed. We affirm the order. We publish this opinion because of our holding regarding the recovery of expert fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, subdivision (c). FACTS Chaaban sued her employer, Wet Seal,1 for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Chaaban alleged Wet Seal fired her at the end of 2006 for refusing to work past her shift and in retaliation for complaining about not getting her statutorily mandated meal and rest breaks. Wet Seal, in turn, asserted that her employment was first suspended, then terminated, for leaving the company's Fashion Island retail outlet on the day after Christmas (one of the busiest retail days of the year) when only one other salesperson was working in the store.2 Company policy forbids leaving a salesperson alone in a store during business hours. The jury returned a verdict in Wet Seal's favor. Wet Seal filed a memorandum of costs claiming $29,770.67. Chaaban filed a motion to tax costs, objecting to a number of the items. With the exception of a small amount attributable to travel expense, the court denied the motion and allowed all of Wet Seal's costs. Chaaban appeals from this postjudgment order. DISCUSSION Code of Civil Procedure3 section 1033.5 sets forth the items that are and are not allowable as the costs recoverable by a prevailing party under section 1032,

1 The defendants were Wet Seal Retail, Inc., and Wet Seal, Inc. Chaaban's actual employer was not specified, and the parties seem to have agreed to refer to both defendants collectively as Wet Seal. We adopt this practice. 2 Wet Seal stores sell women's clothing and accessories. 3 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.

2

subdivision (b), "as a matter of right." As a defendant against whom Chaaban did not recover any relief (see

Download G044718.PDF