MORRISON v. CREEK






Filed 3/29/11



CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

SARAH MORRISON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. VINEYARD CREEK et al., Defendants and Respondents.

A127476 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV-240627)

STORY CONTINUE FROM PART I….


There is also some question whether it was really Morrison's lawsuit that got Morrison her relief. Before the lawsuit was filed, Vineyard Creek's attorney twice asked Ramsey for authority that would change his view as to the scope of the Child Day Care Act. Although Morrison's attorney knew of the legislative history that ultimately convinced Vineyard Creek to permit Morrison to operate her family day care home, and referred to it generally in her April 16, 2007 letter, she did not actually provide the legislative history to Vineyard Creek before filing the lawsuit. We do not imply that she had any obligation to do so; but the fact is that this legislative history concerning the Child Day Care Act–not the assertion of the anti-retaliation and FEHA claims–is what seemed to trigger Vineyard Creek's decision to permit Morrison to open her family day care home and compensate Morrison for her damages. Once Vineyard Creek understood the scope of the Child Day Care Act, it made no effort to evict or harass Morrison or discriminate or retaliate against her, and there is no indication it would have done so absent the filing of the anti-retaliation and FEHA claims.
In sum, based on the settlement agreement itself, Morrison did not establish that she was the prevailing party on the relevant claims.
In any event, the parties and the trial court have focused not on the settlement agreement, but on whether the evidence demonstrated that Vineyard Creek in fact violated the anti-retaliation statute or FEHA. Morrison contends that â€