Confirms That Deadlines To File Fees Motion Extended For Weekends and Holidays. On April 20, 2018, we posted on Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc., Case Nos. B278022/B281129 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Apr. 18, 2018) (unpublished; published May 8, 2018), which decided that a fee motion deadline was extended for a weekend and Holiday which intervened. […]
Fee Award Remanded For A Restudy After Some Damage Components Reversed Or Remanded For Recalculation. Most fee requests in California are done by noticed motion and follow California Rules of Court deadlines in most instances, which generally track the time within which to appeal the underlying judgment or appealable order. Under CRC 3.1702(b)(1) and
4/1 DCA Adhered To Its Prior Sviridov Opinion, Despite Arave’s Criticism Of Svirdov. In Broten v. Target Corp., Case No. D070712 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 4, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff sued Target for various retaliation/wrongful termination claims under FEHA. Although jurors found that harassment was a substantial motivating factor in Target’s discharge of plaintiff,
Financial Disparity Is One Of The Big Factors Weighed. So you represented defendants which/who successfully obtained summary judgment in a plaintiffs’ wage/hour class action case. You move for recovery of routine costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Question is: Will you get them? Maybe not. The reason
Simply Bring Suit Does Not Give Rise To Section 218.5 Fee Recovery Against Unsuccessful Employee. Juarez v. Ali, Case No. H041348 (6th Dist. Jan. 8, 2018) (unpublished) is a situation where a trial court rejected awarding wage/hour claims to a plaintiff, but then denying employer-affiliated defendants’ request for fees under Labor Code section 218.5.
However, 4/2 DCA Denied Expert Witness Fees To Unsuccessful FEHA Plaintiff Rejecting CCP § 998 Offer, Parting Company With Contrary Results By 1/5 And 4/1 DCAs. We have to say that 2018 has started out with a bang, producing a decision by the Fourth District, Division 2 acknowledging it is parting company from the
Plaintiff Was Not An “Aggrieved Employee” For PAGA Standing Purposes. In Kim v. Reins International California Inc,., Case No. B278642 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 29, 2017) (published), plaintiff alleging both individual and class action wage/hour violations (including a PAGA claim) accepted a CCP § 998 offer and dismissed his individual claims with prejudice. The
Compensatory Award Was About $121,000; Plaintiff Had Requested $830,000 In Fees. As reported by Debra Cassens Weiss in a November 28, 2017 post on the ABA Journal, a former legal secretary Noemi Bernal—plaintiff in an overtime dispute with her former law firm—obtained a jury compensatory award against former employers (J.J. Little & Associates, Law
Employer Standard Also Applies To Supervising Employee Defendant. In Lopez v. Routt, Case No. B269345 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 29, 2017) (published), the Second District, Division 3 DCA decided that a supervising employee FEHA defendant had to meet the same frivolousness standard as applicable to employer defendant with respect to recovering fees from
Labor Code Section 220(b) So Provides. In Allyn v. Fallbrook Union Elementary School Dist., Case No. D068325 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2017) (unpublished; opinion following order vacating prior opinion), former school district employee won a $1,194,000 jury verdict against school district for retaliation based on her objections to e-mail retention policies. Emboldened
