Cases: Employment

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 May 8, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiffs in a wage/hour class action prevailed after a bench trial under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).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 B278022/B281129 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Apr. 18, 2018) (unpublished; published May 8, 2018), which decided that a fee motion deadline was extended for a weekend and Holiday which intervened.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             In Broten v. Target Corp., Case No. D070712 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 4, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff sued Target for various retaliation/wrongful termination claims under FEHA.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. 

Civil Rights, Employment, Section 998:  Fee And Costs Award To Successful Defendants Had To Be Reversed And Remanded Based On Failure To Make Findings On Frivolousness For Purposes Of Labor Code Section 218.5 Claim

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

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

Employment/Section 998:  Individual Plaintiff’s Acceptance of 998 Offer And Dismissal Of Individual Claims With Prejudice Meant He Could Not Continue To Prosecute PAGA Claim

Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

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

Employment:  Plaintiff Legal Secretary Prevailing On Overtime Claims Awarded Fees Of $277,000 In Los Angeles County Superior Court

Cases: Employment

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

Civil Rights/Employment:  FEHA Individual Supervising Employee Defendant Still Must Meet Frivolousness Standard For Purposes Of Obtaining FEHA Fee Shifting Award

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment

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

Scroll to Top