Sarkis v. Yolo County Public Agency Risk Management Insurance Authority et al.

Case: Sarkis v. Yolo County Public Agency Risk Management Insurance Authority et al. Case No. CV2024-2614 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Department Fourteen 9:00 a.m.

Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees:

Plaintiff Armond Sarkis’ (“plaintiff”) request for judicial notice in support of opposition is DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.) The documents are not relevant to the Court’s determination of this motion. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6; see Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825; People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422 [a precondition to the taking of judicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form must be relevant to a material issue].)

The Court declines to rule on plaintiff’s evidentiary objections as the Court did not consider the challenged declaration or exhibits when ruling on this motion.

Plaintiff’s conditional request to present limited oral testimony is DENIED as unnecessary. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(b).)

Defendants Yolo County Public Agency Risk Management Insurance Authority (“YCPARMIA”) and Jill Renee Perez (“Perez”) (collectively, “defendants”) motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Government Code section 12965 is DENIED. (Govt. Code, § 12965, subd. (c)(6).) Government Code section 12965(c)(6) authorizes an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in any action brought under Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) (Govt. Code, § 12940 et seq.) A prevailing defendant shall not be awarded fees unless the court finds that the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so. (Ibid.; Cummings v.

Benco Building Services (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1386; Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97, 101; Rosenman v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 859, 874.) The Court finds that the action was not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, nor did plaintiff continue to litigate after it clearly became so. (Ibid.)

If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Defendants’ motion for costs:

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice in support of opposition is DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.) The documents are not relevant to the Court’s determination of this motion. (Rowland, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 268, fn. 6; see Malek Media Group LLC, supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 825; People ex rel. Lockyer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 422.)

The Court declines to rule on plaintiff’s evidentiary objections as the Court did not consider the challenged declaration or exhibits when ruling on this motion.

3 of 5

Plaintiff’s conditional request to present limited oral testimony is DENIED as unnecessary. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(b).)

Defendants’ motion for costs pursuant to Government Code section 12965 is DENIED. (Govt. Code, § 1265, subd. (c)(6).) The legal standard for awarding costs to a prevailing FEHA defendant pursuant to Government Code section 12965(c)(6) is the same as the legal standard applicable to awarding attorneys’ fees to a prevailing FEHA defendant--a prevailing defendant in a FEHA action may be awarded costs only when the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so. (Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 114-115 [a trial court’s discretion to be exercised in the same manner for costs as for attorney fees.

The statute treats the two in parallel and without distinction, providing discretion in the award of ‘attorney's fees and costs’ to a prevailing FEHA party”]; Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel California By the Sea, LLC (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 551, 557.) The Court finds that the action was not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, nor did plaintiff continue to litigate after it clearly became so. (Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 101.)

If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ memorandum of costs:

Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ memorandum of costs as premature, or, in the alternative, to tax costs is GRANTED. The Court finds that defendants’ memorandum of costs is not the proper procedure by which a prevailing FEHA defendant may recover costs in this matter. (Govt. Code, § 12965, subd. (c)(6); Neeble-Diamond, supra, 99 Cal.App.5th at pp. 555-557.)

If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

4 of 5