Cases: Employment

Costs, Employment, Prevailing Party: LLC Defendant Obtaining Dismissal Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Former Labor Code Section 218.5 And Routine Costs In Employment Case Involving Meal Breaks

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Current Section 218.5, Requiring Bad Faith By Employee, Not Retroactive Before January 1, 2014.      In Quiles v. Koji’s Japan Inc., Case No. G049238 (4th Dist., Div. 3   April 3, 2015) (unpublished), employee in an employment case, involving multiple claims including meal breaks, added LLC defendant on an alter ego theory. Eventually, LLC defendant […]

Cases Under Review, Employment, Prevailing Party, Section 998: Employer Accepting 998 $20,000 Offer From Former Employee In Wage/Hour Suit Assessed With $162,434.25 In Fees Under Labor Code Section 1194 Given 998 Offer Was Silent On Fees/Costs

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 998

  $202,882.50 In Fees Had Been Requested.      Portugal v. Sewer and Pipeline Contractor, Inc., Case No. B251730 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 18, 2015) (unpublished) dealt with a former employee suing an employer for minimum wage/overtime compensation violations. Employee served a 998 offer, which did not allocate a $20,000 settlement offer among claims and

Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff Winning Statutory Wage/Hour Penalties Of $4,000 Also Garnered $41,500 In Fees

Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Trial Court Did Reduce Hourly Rate And Only Awarded Fees For Trial Attorney Work.      In Yoo v. Song, Case No. B256229 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 17, 2015) (unpublished), an ex-employee of defendants sued for unpaid overtime, statutory penalties under Labor Code sections 203 and 226, pay for meal/rest periods under Labor Code section

Employment: $9.267.64 Costs Award And $122,378 Fee Award To Winning Employee Affirmed Even Though Compensatory Recovery Was Only $58,977.03

Cases: Employment

  Labor Code Section 218.5 Justified Fee Recovery.      In Hines v. Premier Power Renewable Energy, Inc., Case No. G04912 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished), employee won a compensatory verdict of $58,977.03 against a solar panel employer for failure to pay certain commissions/overages owed under the employment relationship. Following the verdict, the

In The News . . . . E.D. Pa. Judge Awards Wage/Hour Attorneys 20% Of Settlement Fund, While D. Mass. Judge Awards Neurotin Class Action Counsel 28% Percentage Of Recovery In Class Action Case

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar

  Fee Award in TD Bank Wage/Hour Class Action.      In Keller v. TD Bank, N.A., Civ. Action No. 12-5045 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 4, 2014 Order), U.S. District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo awarded class action counsel exactly what they wanted–$1.2 million in fees out of a $6 million settlement fund in the settlement of a wage/hour

Employment: Trial Court Erred In Refusing To Award Default Judgment Fees To Prevailing Party In Wage/Hour Dispute

Cases: Employment

  It Did Satisfy Labor Code Section 218.5 Entitlement Statute, Notwithstanding Lower Court Believing It Was A Breach Of Contract Matter.      In Brunoehler v. Amstem Corp., Case No. B252545 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 10, 2014) (unpublished), a plaintiff obtained a hefty $537,657.49 judgment against former employer for unpaid salary and other benefits. However,

Employment/RFAS: Employee Entitled To About $135,500 In Fees/Costs Of Proof Sanctions In Defeating Employer’s Embezzlement/Conversion Claims As Well As $24,637.32 In Other Costs

Cases: Employment, Cases: Requests for Admission

  Requests for Admission Costs Of Proof Sanctions Properly Included Expert Expenses.      In Amin’s Oil, Inc. v. Indrogit Biswas, Case No. B242081 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 5, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff employer sued defendant for embezzlement/conversion, with defendant ex-employee suing for unpaid overtime wages. Employee prevailed, eventually awarded $16,215 in wages and penalties. Then,

Arbitration/Employment: Agreement With Arbitration Provision Not Unconscionable Because It Had Reciprocal Fees Clause

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment

  1/1 DCA Reverses Lower Court’s Unconscionability Determination Below.      In Galen v. Redfin Corp., Case No. A138642 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 21, 2014) (published), a lower court found unconscionable an arbitration provision in an employment contract under California law. The appellate court reversed, finding the FAA applied and disagreeing that the provision was

Employment: Employer Properly Granted Attorney’s Fees After Employee Did Not Prevail In Labor Commissioner’s Decision At Superior Court Level

Cases: Employment

  Labor Code Section 98.2(c) is Fee Entitlement Basis.      Labor Code section 98.2(c) provides that a party (employee) unsuccessfully seeking review of a labor commissioner’s decision at the superior court level is liable for attorney’s fees and costs to the employer, if the court awards an amount less than zero.      Well, employee unfortunately,

Employment: Lower Court’s Failure To Award Something To Successful Wage/Hour Plaintiff Under Mandatory Fee-Shifting Statute Required Reversal And Remand

Cases: Employment

  Total Fee Denial Reversed, Where Plaintiff Won Only $4,335.38 But Requested $241,931.15 In Fees.      Plaintiff won 2 out of 11 counts in a discrimination/failure to accommodate/wage-hour lawsuit, recovering $4,335.15 on unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid wage claims. He then moved to recoup $241,931.15 (a requested lodestar of $161,954.10 plus a positive 1.5 multiplier).

Scroll to Top