Although Meal And Rest Break Claims Would Not Trigger Fee Recovery, Other Claims Did The Trick.
Barnes v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Inc., Case No. B255034 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 29, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting 998/apportionment case which has some lessons for both plaintiffs and the defense in the Labor Code violations arena.
In this one, plaintiff alleged wage/hour, overtime, meal break, rest break, failure to maintain overtime/meal break/rest break records, and unfair business practices claims. Plaintiff also requested attorney’s fees under Labor Code sections 218.5 and 1194 on her claims for failure to pay wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, and failure to maintain records, although having an omnibus prayer on meal/rest break claims. Defendant lost a summary judgment in entirety, but defendant shortly thereafter sent a CCP § 998 offer by which it would pay plaintiff $25,000, but with statutory costs and attorney’s fees up to the date of the offer being later determined “in an amount determined by the court, according to proof.” Plaintiff accepted the 998 offer and predictably moved to recoup fees of $65,465 with a 1.5 multiplier, for a total of $98,197—with fees being based on Labor Code sections 218.5 and 1194.
The defense mainly opposed on the theory that no fees were allowed, pursuant to Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 53 Cal.4th 1244 (2012) for meal/rest break claims, which it argued was the exclusive thrust of the suit. Plaintiff disagreed, arguing that she had pled wage/hour, overtime, and failure to maintain records claims which were inextricably intertwined with the other claims such that fee recovery was justified. The trial judge agreed, awarding full the full lodestar request of $65,465 but nixing the multiplier request.
The appellate court affirmed. It suggested that the 998 offer language was broad enough to allow recovery for fees on any of the claims which had fee predicates. However, given that apportionment is a discretionary function, the reviewing court had no difficulty accepting that the claims were intertwined so as to justify the decision to award fees on the non-meal/non-rest break causes of action.