Cases: Employment

Employment:  Prevailing Former Employee Not Entitled To Labor Code Section 218.5 Fees Because School District Is Immune From 218.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Employment

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             In Allyn v. Fallbrook Union Elementary School Dist., Case No. D068325 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2017) (unpublished; opinion following order vacating prior opinion), former school district employee won a $1,194,000 jury verdict against school district for retaliation based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 […]

Class Action, Common Fund, Employment, Lodestar, Multiplier:  N.D. Cal. District Judge Ilston Awards Wage/Hour Class Action Counsel $15,200,002.90 In Hybrid Statutory Fee/Common Fund Case Against Wal-Mart

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

District Judge Confronts Multiple Issues In Reaching Fee Award.             U.S. District Judge Susan Ilston in Ridgeway v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-05221-SI (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2017 Doc. #606) confronted numerous issues in deciding the appropriate award to class counsel in a truck driver employee class action case against Wal-Mart for wage hour

Employment:  Trial Judge’s Fee Award Based On Percentage Of Plaintiff’s Recovery Attributable To Wages Under Labor Code Section 218.5 Was Erroneous

Cases: Employment

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 B266461/B267622 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 11, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge was faced with a prevailing plaintiff bringing an attorney’s fees motion under Labor Code section 218.5, which allows fees

Employment, Indemnity, Reasonableness Of Fees, Requests For Admissions: Four Unpublished Decisions On July 11, 2017 Highlight These Issues

Cases: Employment, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission

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 B263196/B263718 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 11, 2017) (unpublished).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

Employment: Lack Of Specific Allegations In Initial And Amended Complaints Doomed Labor Code Section 218.5 Fee Recovery Later On By Plaintiff

Cases: Employment

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

Appeal Sanctions/Employment/Indemnity:  Intermediate Appellate Courts Confront Hodgepodge Of Issues

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Employment, Cases: Indemnity

  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

Employment: 2/7 DCA Reverses $129,000 Fee Award Against Unsuccessful Plaintiff In Wage/Hour Case Based On Retroactivity Of Amendment To Labor Code Section 218.5(a)

Cases: Employment

  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.

Employment: Beck v. Stratton Decision Is Now Published

Cases: Employment

  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

Employment: Civil Limited Jurisdiction Deadline To Move For Attorney’ Fees Not Applicable Under The Facts

Cases: Employment

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

Employment/Reasonableness Of Fees: FEHA/Labor Plaintiff Winning Only $9,648, But Requesting Fee Recovery Of $276,684, Correctly Awarded Zilch—Nada

Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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

Scroll to Top