Panoply Of Defense Arguments Rejected On Appeal.
Plaintiff in Alexander v. Market Street Apartments, LLC, Case No. D070198 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2017) (unpublished) accepted a CCP § 998 offer for $9,980 expressly allowing her to file a fees motion in a wage/hour dispute subject to a one-way favorable Labor Code fee shifting provision and in a case aggressively litigated by the defense in superior court (with mucho, mucho discovery). Plaintiff then removed to recoup $96,180 in fees after accepting the 998 offer, with the trial judge awarding her $93,270. The defense appealed, raising a host of arguments for reversal, none of which resonated. The appellate court determined: (1) plaintiff was the prevailing party by receiving a net monetary recovery and expressly reserved her right to receive fees of a mandatory nature under Labor Code section 226(e)(1); (2) this case was litigated as a superior court case such that limited civil case limitations on recovery were inapt; (3) plaintiff did not have to apportion fees expended for her husband’s work because the activities were inextricably intertwined with her case; and (4) her awarded fees were not grossly unreasonable given the defense decision to aggressively litigate the matter. The defense could not surmount the abuse of discretion standard of review on appeal.