Lodestar Method Should Have Been Used And Will Be On Remand. In Chen v. M&C Hotel Interest, Inc., Case Nos. B266461/B267622 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 11, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge was faced with a prevailing plaintiff bringing an attorney’s fees motion under Labor Code section 218.5, which allows fees […]
Fee Reasonableness—Neman Real Estate Investments, LLC v. Oken. Case Nos. B263196/B263718 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 11, 2017) (unpublished). In this first one, defendants won a commercial property dispute and were awarded costs/fees of $619,566.75 based on a “blended” $495 hourly rate to L.A. real estate litigators that happened to be “below market.” The
Specific Facts Sealed The Deal In This Decision. Shames v. Utility Consumers’ Action Network, Case No. D070141 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 29, 2017) (published) should be a decision of interest to employment litigation attorneys when it comes to Labor Code section 218.5 fee recovery, although its specific facts dictate the result and counsel
Employment—Nicolosi v. Cooper, Case No. B264459 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 17 2017) (Unpublished)–$64,000 In Fees Just Fine In $80,933.75 Back Wages Case. This one is not hard to fathom. Employee obtained $80,933.75 in back wages and $64,000 in attorney’s fees (out of a requested $130,000). Employee appealed, arguing not enough was
2/7 DCA Panel Agreed With The Reasoning In the USS-Posco Industries Case. In Jakiel v. Impresa Aerospace, LLC, Case Nos. B261175/B264508 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 8, 2017) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed a grant of over $129,000 in attorney’s fees in favor of an employer winning summary judgment in a wage/hour case.
Deals With Attorney’s Fees Awardable, Depending On Civil Court Jurisdiction, Under Labor Code Section 98.2(a). On February 16, 2017, we posted on the Second District’s decision in Beck v. Stratton, which dealt with a $31,365 Labor Code section 98.2(a) attorney’s fees award to employee in a Labor Commissioner case were the unpaid wage/penalties
Unlimited Civil Default Rules Applied Such That $31,365 Fee Recovery Allowable Under Case Producing About $6,000 Compensatory Unpaid Wage/Penalty Award. Beck v. Stratton, Case No. B270826 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 14, 2017) (unpublished) is a situation where the Labor Commissioner awarded an ex-employee about $6,000 in unpaid wages and penalties against his former
Plaintiff Asked Jury For $322,551 In Damages; Chavez Found Controlling. Inflated or excessive fee requests provide an opportunity for a trial judge to deny the request altogether or make substantial reductions. Unfortunately for a marginally winning plaintiff below, the former—the zilch/nada—option was seized by the trial judge and affirmed by the appellate court
4/3 DCA Sides With First District in USS-Posco Decision On Retroactivity Issue. On January 1, 2014, Labor Code section 218.5 was amended significantly, changing a reciprocal fee-shifting statute in an employment context to only vex a losing plaintiff bringing certain wage/hour cases in bad faith. The retroactive impact of this decision was squarely
Section Allows Fee Recovery Against Either Losing Employee or Employer. Labor Code section 98.2(c) is a two-way fee-shifting fee provision which mandates a lower court to award fees against either an employer or employee bringing an unsuccessful appeal from a Labor Commissioner ruling. The legislative purpose of this section is to discourage meritless
