Cases: Employment

Employment, Lodestar, Multiplier: Employer Not Winning Total Defense Victory In De Novo Sup. Ct. Appeal Of Labor Comm. Award Properly Hit With Adverse Fee Award Of $86,160 Even Though Labor Comm. Award Only $4,250 (Rev. Down To $2,250 By Court Of Appeal)

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Limited Success Argument Does Not Diminish Fee Recovery In This Particular Context.             In Nishiki v. Danko Meredith P.C., Case No. A147733 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 1, 2018) (published), an employer suffered an adverse Berman hearing award before the Labor Commissioner for waiting time penalties for failure to deliver a check for final wages

Allocation, Employment, Section 998: Trial Judge Correctly Awarded Substantial Fees And Costs On Labor Code Vacation Pay Claim, In 2-1 Appellate Decision

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

Vacation Pay Award Totaled $28,500, With Prevailing Plaintiff Winning Subsequent Fees Of $495,549.75 And Costs Of $84,035.40.             Curran v. Schools of the Sacred Heart-San Francisco, Case Nos. A142615/A143646 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 5, 2018) (unpublished) was a case where plaintiff, dean of students at defendant, did not have her contract extended after 37

Costs, Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees: FEHA Award Of $44,437.50 In Attorney’s Fees And $3,411.37 In Costs Was Largely No Abuse of Discretion

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Appellate Court Did Modify Judgment To Exclude UPS Services And Copy Of Amended Summons Expense Recoupment As Routine Costs.             In Lepe v. Luft Enterprises, Case No. E067382 (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 10, 2018) (unpublished), three plaintiffs won wage/hour awards against the defendant to the tune of $140,016. They then moved for fees and

Costs, Employment: Losing Plaintiff Properly Not Saddled With Routine Costs After Losing Age Discrimination Claim

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

Replacement By Younger Person Another Indicator To Prevent Routine Costs Award Under The Circumstances.              By now, our readers will know that plaintiffs losing FEHA claims generally, unless the facts are austere, avoid attorney’s fees or costs even though they ultimately lost at pleading, summary judgment, or trial stages. (To be fair, only a general

Employment, Private Attorney General: $996,232.72 Fee Award Under CCP § 1021.5 Was No Abuse Of Discretion Where $227,922.43 Restitutionary Award And Injunction Relief Awarded Under Unfair Competition Law After Bench Trial

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

Section 1021.5 Elements Were Met In This Case.              In Kane v. Valley Slurry Seal Co., Case No. C079558 (3d Dist. May 8, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiffs in a wage/hour class action prevailed after a bench trial under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Specifically, plaintiffs prevailed on some claims and the defense prevailed on others, but a

Deadlines, Employment: Maldonado 2/8 DCA Decision Now Published

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Employment

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.

Deadlines/Employment:  Successful Plaintiff Employee Class Timely Filed Fee Motion

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Employment

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

Employment:  Plaintiff Not Obtaining Money Or Injunctive Relief In FEHA Case Properly Denied Fees, And Trial Judge Properly Awarded Partial Claimed Costs Under CCP § 998 To Defense

Cases: Employment

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,

Costs/Employment:   Several California District Judges Deny Recovery Of Routine Costs To Prevailing Defendants In Wage/Hour Cases

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

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

Employment:  Fee Recovery Properly Denied To Employer Under Labor Code Section 218.5 Where No Evidence That Suit Was Frivolously Maintained

Cases: Employment

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. 

Scroll to Top