Cases: Employment

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 […]

Employment: 4/3 DCA Reverses Fee Award Against Losing Employee Plaintiff Based On Determination Labor Code Section 218.5 Amendment Requiring Bad Faith On Plaintiff’s Part Was Not Met

Cases: Employment

  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

Employment: $77,400 Labor Code Section 98.2 Fee Award Against Plaintiff Losing Labor Commissioner Appeal Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Employment

  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

Employment: Former Employee Prevailing On Unpaid Wages Claim In Unlimited Jurisdiction Court Was Entitled To $40,000 Fee Recovery

Cases: Employment

  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

Employment: Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules That FLSA Fees Against A Previously Dismissing Plaintiff Were Not Recoverable By The Defense As Costs As A Matter Of Right

Cases: Employment

  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

Employment: DFEH’s Failure To Plead For Fees Expressly In Complaint Did Not Impact Fee Recovery After Success At A Bench Trial

Cases: Employment

  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

Employment/Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff Winning About $90,000 In Wage Overtime Case Gains $212,958.50 Fee Recovery

Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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

Employment: Plaintiff Employee Not Prevailing Against One Defendant, Found Not To Be An Employer, Erroneously Hit With $29,295 In Fees Under Labor Code Section 218.5

Cases: Employment

  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

Civil Rights: Third Time Is The Charm—Defense Obtains $78,618 In Fees Against Unsuccessful FEHA Plaintiff Based On Fact Claims Were Frivolous

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment

  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

Employment: SCOTUS Rules That No Merits Determination Required For Defendant To Be Declared Prevailing Party In EEOC Employment Discrimination Action

Cases: Employment

  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

Scroll to Top