Bui

Bui v. Trang Kim Nguyen

Good Law
179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 523·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 984·230 Cal. App. 4th 1357
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 28, 2014H039310California7,880 words

Opinion

Opinion

Marquez, J.

When a lawsuit enforces “an important right affecting the public interest” and the statutory criteria under section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied, a private litigant may recover his or her attorney fees. One criterion under section 1021.5 is that private enforcement of the public right vindicated in the lawsuit was necessary. (Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1214 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 342 , 241 P.3d 840 ].) In this appeal, we conclude that plaintiff, who was awarded damages for injuries arising from negligently performed dental work and who obtained an injunction prohibiting defendant Trang Kim Nguyen (a dental technician) from identifying herself as a dentist, was not entitled to attorney fees under section 1021.5 because he did not show that private enforcement of a public right was necessary.

A jury found in plaintiff Vien T. Bui’s favor on an intentional misrepresentation claim and awarded him $150,000 against defendant Hi-Tech Dental, Inc. (Hi-Tech). It also awarded $50,000 against Hi-Tech’s owner and dental assistant, Trang Kim Nguyen. (Nguyen; hereafter, appellants Hi-Tech and Nguyen are sometimes collectively referred to as…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.