Cases: Employment

Arbitration, Employment: 4/3 DCA Affirms Lower Court’s Denial Of Motion To Compel Arbitration Because, Among Other Things, Arbitration Clause Gave Arbitrator Mandatory Authority To Award Fees To Employer Even Where Fee-Shifting Statutes Favored Employe

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment

Mandatory Language Of Fee Clause Demonstrated Substantive Unconscionability, Which Was Not Supplanted By More General Reference To JAMS Employment Rules Which Were More Discretionary In Nature.             We commend employment attorneys to read Randall v. Veros Credit, LLC, Case No. G056463 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 17, 2019) (unpublished), where a trial judge denied an […]

Employment, Multipliers, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: FEHA Plaintiff Properly Awarded Fees At Reduced Hourly Rates, But Augmented By Hourly Rates For Enhancement Factors, And Then Correctly Denied Any Multiplier Beyond That

Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Almost $1.5 Million In Fees/Costs Sought, But Ultimate Affirmed Award Was About $649,000.             The next case is an interesting example of how a trial judge’s decision to not credit prior fee awards to an employment contingency attorney was affirmed because there was not sufficient foundation to show the prior awards were similar to the

Civil Rights, Costs, Employment, Section 998: Where Thrust Of Losing Plaintiff’s Suit Was A FEHA Claim, Trial Court Properly Refused To Award CCP § 998 Costs To Winning Defendant Despite Loss On Non-FEHA Whistleblower Claim

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

Prominence Of Suit Prevailed, Plus Appellate Court Offers Tips On What Trial Courts Ought To Follow When There Is A Split In Intermediate Appellate Thought On An Issue.             In Thiry v. Pet Partners, Inc., Case No. E070851 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 20, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff brought a mixed FEHA/whistleblower/UCF suit based on allegations

Employment: $6,845.50 Fee Award Against Unsuccessful Plaintiff Ex-Employee In Labor Commissioner Appeal Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Employment

Fee Entitlement Existed And Amount Of Requested Fees Was Reasonable In Nature.             In Gonzalez v. Lucky Seven Dragons, Inc., Case No. B289269 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 20, 2019) (unpublished), in pro per plaintiff, ex-employee appealed an adverse Labor Commissioner decision in favor of ex-employer.  Plaintiff gained nothing on his appeal to

Employment: $46,062 Fee Award Out Of Requested $104,771 Was No Abuse Of Discretion Where Co-Counsel Fees Seen As Unnecessary And .6 Negative Multiplier Applied

Cases: Employment

Plaintiff Only Recovered $29,505.18 In Wage/Hour Damages.             In Shaw v. I-Safe, Inc., Case No. D073721 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 31, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff recovered $29,505.68 in damages in a wage/hour case, then moved for $104,771 in fees as the prevailing party (an amount which included fees for a co-counsel).  The lower court awarded

Costs, Employment: Defendant Winning Against Plaintiff’s Employment-Based Claims, Although Losing Cross-Claims, Entitled To Routine Costs, But Not Costs Under Labor Code Section 218.5

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

No Finding That Claims Made Or Prosecuted In Bad Faith Failed To Trigger Section 218.5 Cost-Shifting.             Plaintiff and defendant/cross-complainant lost both of their suits after a bench trial, plaintiff losing wage/hour claims and cross-complainant losing fiduciary duty/joint venture cross-claims.  The lower court determined both sides should bear their own costs, with no determination made

Employment, Section 1717: Labor Code § 218.5(a), Requiring Bad Faith For Losing Plaintiff In Wage Nonpayment Case To Face Fee Exposure, Prevails In Wage Claim Case Inextricably Intertwined With Contract Fees Clause Allowing Fees to Prevailing Employer

Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 1717

Section 218.5(a)’s Policy Prevailed Over Section 1717 In This Instance.             Dane-Elec Corp. v. Bodokh, Case No. G055312 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 24, 2019) (partially published; fee discussion published) involved the collision between two fee entitlement provisions—Labor Code section 218.5(a) and Civil Code section 1717.             Labor Code section 218.5(a) is a unilateral-fee shifting

Employment, Private Attorney General: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion Nor Err In Denying Fees And Costs To Plaintiffs Under PAGA

Cases: Employment, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiffs Prevailed At Trial On Their California Labor Code Section 1102.5 Claims, But Failed To Pursue Their PAGA Section 2699 Claim, Thereby Sealing Their Fate For PAGA-Related Fees and Costs         In order to prevail on a PAGA-related fees and costs motion, a plaintiff first has to pursue a PAGA claim and prevail.         In

Employment, Ethics: Fourth District, Division 3, Affirms Award Of No Attorney’s Fees In Employment Case

Cases: Employment, Cases: Ethics

And In The Published Part, An Attorney Is Reported To The State Bar For Misconduct.         We blog about the next case a) because it involves attorney’s fees in its unpublished portion; b) because it addresses attorney misconduct in its published portion; and c) because Mike and Marc represented Defendants in their successful response to

Employment: 4/3 DCA Decides That Nanny Winning Berman De Novo Hearing Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Because She Opted For Administrative Remedy And Was Not A Prevailing Respondent (But A Prevailing Appellant Not Entitled To Fees)

Cases: Employment

Court Of Appeal Found Sampson Decision Sounder Than Eicher In Determining If Labor Commissioner Appeal Was A Civil Action Worthy Of Fees Under Labor Code § 1194.             Boktor v. Applebaum, Case No. G055509 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 23, 2019; posted Jan. 24, 2019) (unpublished) waded into the thorny issue of whether a successful

Scroll to Top