Lower Court Did Not Have to Do a Mechanical Apportionment Based on Damages Awards Against Separate Defendants, Although Dissent Thought Apportionment Was In Order.
In Garcia v. RPSAJ, Inc., Case No. B235901 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 14, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff was awarded damages of $200,000 in an employment dispute and then recovered $382,440 in fees ($318,700 lodestar plus 20% multiplier) out of a requested $442,166 lodestar plus 2.0 multiplier add-on request. Defendants–the former employer and owner/president of employer–appealed, with owner arguing that he should not have been jointly and severally liable or, at best, only 14% liable given that only 14.7% of the assessed damages went against him personally.
A 2-1 panel decision, authored by Acting Presiding Justice Armstrong, affirmed the determination, which drew a dissent by Justice Mosk.
The majority determined that the lower court did not have to apply a mechanical apportionment formula as advocated by losing individual defendant. The dissent saw things differently, arguing that apportionment was close to mandatory under the reasoning of cases like No Oil, Inc. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 50 Cal.App.3d 8, 28-29 (1975). The majority also observed that it was novel the corporate employer would be arguing it should bear more of the fee exposure.