§ 1038.Reasonable Cause and Good Faith Belief As to Justifiable Controversy Determination In Government Claims Act Proceedings

This section targets a specific category of case where the Legislature wanted an extra check on plaintiffs who sue the government, or sue for indemnity or contribution, without a solid basis: Government Claims Act proceedings and actions for express or implied indemnity or contribution. When a defendant or cross-defendant wins a dispositive motion -- summary judgment, a directed verdict, judgment under § 631.8, or a nonsuit -- the court must, on that party's motion, determine whether the plaintiff, petitioner, cross-complainant, or intervenor brought the proceeding with reasonable cause and in the good faith belief that a justifiable controversy existed.

If the court finds the case wasn't brought in good faith and with reasonable cause, it moves to a second question: the defense costs reasonably and necessarily incurred by the party who won. Those defense costs, defined in subdivision (b) to include reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and the expense of experts, advisers, and consultants, get awarded in a judgment favoring that party, on top of the costs it would ordinarily recover as the prevailing party.

The timing and tradeoffs matter. Subdivision (c) requires the motion before the jury is discharged or judgment is entered, and it exacts a price for using this remedy: any party who requests relief under this section waives the right to bring a later malicious prosecution action over the same case, though not requesting relief under this section doesn't itself waive that separate remedy. Subdivision (d) limits the whole section to cases where the defendant's dispositive motion was granted -- a defendant who loses that motion, or never brings one, can't use this section at all.