Cases: Employment

Employment: Labor Code Fee-Shifting Statute In Effect At Time Of Fee Proceeding, Not Earlier In Case, Determined Defense Fee Entitlement Under Labor Code Section 218.5

Cases: Employment

  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 […]

Employment, Lodestar, Multiplier, Record: Plaintiff Employee Obtaining $43,654.50 On Unpaid Commission Claim Awarded $58,341.50 Under Labor Code Fee-Shifting Statute

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Record

  Plaintiff Requested $212,287.50 (Inclusive Of A 1.5 Multiplier), But Lower Court’s Award Of A Reasonable Lodestar Was No Abuse of Discretion.      Plaintiff employee eventually obtained recovery of $43,654.50 in an unpaid commission dispute even though he at one point was willing to accept $75,000 to settle which included a $30,000 component to reimburse

Civil Rights, Employment, Family Law, Probate, Settlement: Four Unpublished “Power Ball” Post

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Probate, Cases: Settlement

  Meyer v. Brown, Case No. D066226 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 14, 2015) (Unpublished)—Family Law.     In this one, after an evidentiary hearing in which the court dismissed a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO), the prevailing party recovered $7,500 out of a requested $15,800 in fees.  The fee-assessed, losing party appealed, but to no

Employment: 4/3 DCA Publishes Arneson Decision

Cases: Employment

  Case Dealt With Fee Recovery Under Labor Code Section 98.2.     On July 30, 2015, we posted on Royal Practice Funding Corp. v. Arneson, Case No. G050158 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 28, 2015), which decided that an ex-employer’s withdrawal of a superior court petition respecting an ex-employee’s Labor Commissioner wage claim award did

Employment: Terminated Employee Could Not Recover Labor Code Section 2802(c) Fees For Expenditures Incurred Post-Employment While She Was An Independent Contractor

Cases: Employment

  Fee Recovery Properly Denied, With Lower Court Correctly Construing Jury Special Verdict.     In Letizia v. Wentworth, Paoli & Purdy, LLP, Case No. G050132 (4th Dist. Div. 3 Aug. 17, 2015) (unpublished), cross-complainant obtained a jury verdict in her favor, with the jury making these specific findings:  (1) cross-complainant was terminated by cross-defendant as

Costs/Employment: Federal Circuit Court Rules That FLSA Does Not Allow Plaintiffs To Obtain Reimbursement For Expert Witnesses Except For Per Diem Witness/Testimonial Travel Fees

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

  We Came To The Same Conclusion In A July 6, 2009 Prior Post.      The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in Gortat v. Capala Brothers, Inc., No. 14-3304-cv (2d Cir. July 29, 2015), decided that prevailing plaintiffs in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case are not entitled to reimbursement of expert witness expenses

Employment: Lower Court Improperly Denied Fees To Winning Employee At Labor Commissioner Level Where Employer Withdrew Appeal To Superior Court

Cases: Employment

  Labor Code Section 98.2 Is Not Symmetrical, Never Intending To Incentivize Employers To File Frivolous Appeals And Then Withdraw Them.      Royal Pacific Funding Corp. v. Arneson, Case No. G050158 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 28, 2015) (unpublished) concerned an employee who won a Labor Commissioner wage claim of $29,500, prompting an appeal to

Allocation, Employment, Section 998: Plaintiff Accepting 998 Offer Entitled To Labor Code Fees For Inextricably Intertwined Wage-Hour/Overtime/Failure To Maintain Records Claims

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

  Although Meal And Rest Break Claims Would Not Trigger Fee Recovery, Other Claims Did The Trick.      Barnes v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Inc., Case No. B255034 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 29, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting 998/apportionment case which has some lessons for both plaintiffs and the defense in the Labor Code violations

Scroll to Top