Tran v. Haralambus CA2/8

Filed 9/4/13 Tran v. Haralambus CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

NEENAH TRAN, B242575

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 352094) v.

HARRY HARALAMBUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Charles F. Palmer, Judge. Affirmed.

Harry Haralambus, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

R. Jeffery Ward for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________________

SUMMARY Defendant Harry Haralambus appeals from an order awarding $143,861.87 in attorney fees to plaintiff Neenah Tran after she prevailed at a bench trial on causes of action for sexual harassment, assault and battery. Defendant contends the court abused its discretion when it awarded plaintiff the full amount of her fees, because plaintiff recovered only $22,625 in damages, plaintiff did not prevail on other causes of action, and her attorney fees were three times greater than defendant’s attorney fees. Defendant has shown no abuse of discretion, so we affirm the order. FACTS Plaintiff sued defendant and her employer, Beyond Blue, Inc., for sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), and also alleged 12 other causes of action, all based on the same facts. Plaintiff’s case was consolidated with a case filed by her sister, Tina Tran. Plaintiff prevailed on her sexual harassment claims, and on causes of action for assault and battery, against both defendants, and also prevailed on a claim under FEHA against Beyond Blue, Inc., for failure to prevent harassment and discrimination. Plaintiff did not prevail on the nine other causes of action.1 Plaintiff recovered damages of $22,625, consisting of noneconomic damages of $20,000 and economic damages for future psychotherapy of $2,625. Plaintiff’s sister did not prevail on any of her claims. Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney fees. On April 19, 2012, the court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to recover attorney fees. The court observed that, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a), the trial court has discretion to deny attorney fees to a plaintiff who prevails on a FEHA claim but recovers an amount that