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 Beck v. Stratton, Case No. B270826 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 14, 2017) (unpublished) is a situation where the Labor Commissioner awarded an ex-employee about $6,000 in unpaid wages and penalties against his former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
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
