Smith v. City of La Verne

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 24-5805
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUSTIN SMITH, No. 24-5805 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:23-cv-00644-KK-E v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF LA VERNE; ADDIEL JULIAN, Officer,

Defendants - Appellants,

and

LA VERNE POLICE DEPARTMENT, DOES, 1 to 10,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Kenly Kiya Kato, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 9, 2025 Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW and KOH, Circuit Judges, and CHEN, District Judge.**

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. The City of La Verne and La Verne Police Department Officer Addiel Julian

(collectively, “Defendants-Appellants”) appeal the district court’s award of

$343,135 in attorney’s fees to Justin Smith, after Smith prevailed at trial but was

awarded less than Defendants-Appellants’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68

offer. While Smith has not cross-appealed, he now argues that the district court

erred by not awarding him treble damages. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo whether attorney’s fees are considered “costs” under

Rule 68. See United States v. Trident Seafoods Corp., 92 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir.

1996). We also review de novo the district court’s interpretation of whether the

Bane Act allows for post-verdict treble damages. United States v. Middleton, 231

F.3d 1207, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000).

1. The district court did not err in determining that, under the Bane Act,

attorney’s fees are not considered “costs” under Rule 68. “[T]he term ‘costs’ in

Rule 68 [i]s intended to refer to all costs properly awardable under the relevant

substantive statute or other authority.” Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 9 (1985).

The relevant substantive statute, the Bane Act, provides that “the court may award

the . . . plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees,” but does not mention costs at all. Cal.

Civ. Code § 52.1(i). And in federal court, the term “costs” does not ordinarily

include attorney’s fees. See Marek, 473 U.S. at 8; 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Because

2 24-5805 neither the relevant substantive statute nor federal procedural rules define

attorney’s fees as “costs”, the district court properly held that attorney’s fees under

the Bane Act are not considered “costs” within the meaning of Rule 68.

2. California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1032 and 1033.5 do not change

this analysis because those statutes are state procedural rules. Sections 1032 and

1033.5 do not provide any entitlement to attorney’s fees or any other substantive

right but instead detail the procedural mechanisms for awarding costs in state court

proceedings. See Santisas v. Goodin, 951 P.2d 399, 411 (Cal. 1998). As a federal

court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim, the district court

correctly applied state substantive rules and federal procedural rules. Mangold v.

California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995); Aceves v.

Allstate Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding, in a diversity case,

that federal procedure should be used “to determine the amount of costs” properly

awardable, even when state rules allow for a greater recovery).

3. The district court correctly denied Smith’s request for treble damages.

Because Smith has not cross-appealed, we ordinarily would not “alter a judgment

to benefit” him. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 244 (2008). But even if

we decline to apply the cross-appeal rule and reach the merits, the district court

correctly interpreted the Bane Act. The Bane Act allows a plaintiff to recover

“actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court

3 24-5805 sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual

damage.” Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). Smith did not request a jury instruction as to

treble damages, and the district court correctly held that the statute indicates treble

damages may be awarded by the factfinder, whether that be the jury or the “court

sitting without a jury” in a bench trial. See Sanguinetti v. Moore Dry Dock Co., 36

Cal. 2d 812, 819 (Cal. 1951) (“[T]he amount of damages is ordinarily a question of

fact to be determined by the jury.”). Smith has not identified any authority

suggesting a court can award post-verdict treble damages on a Bane Act claim after

a jury has already awarded damages on the same claim.

AFFIRMED.

4 24-5805