Employer Asking For $1.6 Million In Fees For All Work Only Got $150,000 For Apportioned Time On One Labor Claim. The fee order in Salhi v. PNY Technologies, Case No. CIV 514059 (San Mateo County Superior Court) is interesting and may well present some nice strategies call for employers who obtain a determination […]
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 In Quiles v. Koji’s Japan Inc., Case No. G049238 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 3, 2015) (unpublished), employee in an employment case, involving multiple claims including meal breaks, added LLC defendant on an alter ego theory.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
$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 Portugal v. Sewer and Pipeline Contractor, Inc., Case No. B251730 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 18, 2015) (unpublished) dealt with a former employee suing an employer for minimum wage/overtime compensation violations.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
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 In Yoo v. Song, Case No. B256229 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 17, 2015) (unpublished), an ex-employee of defendants sued for unpaid overtime, statutory penalties under Labor Code sections 203 and 226, pay for meal/rest periods under Labor Code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
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 In Hines v. Premier Power Renewable Energy, Inc., Case No. G04912 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 25, 2014) (unpublished), employee won a compensatory verdict of $58,977.03 against a solar panel employer for failure to pay certain commissions/overages owed under the employment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
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
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 In Brunoehler v. Amstem Corp., Case No. B252545 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 10, 2014) (unpublished), a plaintiff obtained a hefty $537,657.49 judgment against former employer for unpaid salary and other benefits.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,
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,
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
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,
