1.5 Multiplier Sustained by Appellate Court, Rejecting Application of Federal Perdue Analysis.
Well, well. This next unpublished decision is interesting on a couple of fronts. First, it illustrates that courts will not hesitate to vindicate wage/hour violations through an award of fees enhanced by a multiplier. Second, it also demonstrates that state courts will not kowtow to federal decisions that are not seen as binding in areas where there is a strong state policy encouraging fee shifting in favors of a certain class of litigants (in this case, employees proving wage/hour violations).
Kowtowing in a court. Source: Wikipedia.
Good Nite Inn Management, Inc. v. Ahmed, Case No. A129488 (1st Dist., Div 2 June 29, 2011) (unpublished) is the case.
There, a plaintiff seeking regress under California wage/hour violation statutes prevailed (garnering damages of $26,590.66). She then sought substantial fees for both defending against employer claims and litigating her prosecuting her own wage/hour claims. The trial court granted her all but 71.5 hours of her attorney’s time that was allocated to different work, but applied a 1.5 multiplier–resulting in a grand total fee award of $210,625.75.
Disgrunted employer appealed; disgruntled employer was not any less grumpy after it lost the appeal.
Employer was swimming upstream on the allocation issue, which is discretionary anyway, because the lower court excised 71.5 hours of work on other tasks. Hard to get over? You bet, and so ruled the appellate court, given that the other work was “inextricably intertwined.” Employer’s citation to unique allocation issues applicable to insurance bad faith cases (Cassim/Brandt) and Cartwright cases (Carver v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 119 Cal.App.4th 498 (2004)) did not strike a receptive chord with the court.
The 1.5 multiplier issue brought us to an interesting point. Employer relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Perdue v. Kenny A., 130 S.Ct. 1662 (2010) for the proposition that the lodestar usually gets it done so multiplier enhancements are taboo. Here is the response: “[Employer’s] reliance on federal authority, however, is misplaced. Our state courts have observed that ‘an upward or downward adjustment from the lodestar figure will be far more common under California law than under federal law.’” (Slip Opn., p. 17.) Yipee, we would guess, would be the response of a lot of state practitioners on this particular topic.
