Damages Award Was Inside Of $25,000 Jurisdictional Limit, But Lower Court Did Not Abuse Discretion By Granting Fees Anyway. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033(a) does allow a trial judge to discretionarily deny any award of attorney’s fees to a litigant who files an unlimited jurisdiction case but obtains a damages award […]
Fourth Circuit Adopts An Intermediate Standard On The Issue. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Andrews v. America’s Living Center, LLC, No. 15-1658 (4th Cir. June 28, 2016) (published) confronted a situation as to whether a plaintiff previously dismissing a FLSA suit, but later refilling, had to pay attorney’s fees as costs
Considered Costs, Fees Do Not Have To Be Expressly Pled. In Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. FloraTech Landscape Mgt., Inc., Case No. A139762 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 30, 2016) (unpublished), DFEH filed an administrative charge of disability discrimination against defendant, which transferred the matter to superior court and lost a
Plaintiff Did Request $526,034.50 Base Fees Plus $60.060 “Fees On Fees.” The trial judge, after allowing supplemental briefing and carefully weighing lots of fee substantiation, decided to award a winning overtime wage hour plaintiff, who recovered a little short of $90,000 in compensatory damages, attorney’s fees of $212,958.50. However, plaintiff appealed because her
Appellate Court Determines No Statutory Basis For Fees, That Waiting Time Penalty Loss Did Not Give Rise To Fees Under Section 218.5. In Ramos v. Garcia, Case No. D068500 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 28, 2016) (published), plaintiff employee obtained some monetary relief against two defendants, but did not prevail against another defendant
Defense Lost Two 128.7 Prior Sanctions Requests, But Got It On The Third Try, Doing Some Nice Things As Far As Amount Requested. Dzhanikyan v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., Case No. B261113 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 15, 2016) (unpublished) is a nice illustration of how good defense thinking and tenacity can produce
Laughing Matter? – Fee Award Remanded For Further Factual Determinations Regarding Frivolousness. In CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375 (U.S. Supreme Court May 19, 2016), SCOTUS was reviewing a fee award in favor of a defendant and against the EEOC in an amount of over $4 million after a district judge
Plaintiff Winning Meal Periods Claim Not Entitled To Fees, But Entitled To Routine Costs. In the last few months, there have been several cases interpreting the public policy exception to arbitral finality. Ling v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., Case No. H039367 (6th Dist. Mar. 25, 2016) (published) is another one on this
Failure To Mention PAGA Fee Entitlement, Much Less Segregate Fees, Resulted In Overturn. This next post is an ouch! In Makabi v. Gedalia, Case No. B261005 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 2, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff employees sued two defendant employers for a host of Labor Code wage/hour violations and four plaintiffs sued
State Court Is Different Than Federal On This Issue, Such That Retroactivity Prevailed Here. USS-POSCO Industries v. Case, Case Nos. A140457/A142145 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 26, 2016) (published) decided that the fee-shifting statute in effect at the time of the fee motion, which was different than the one at the time the
