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 In Brunoehler v. Amstem Corp., Case No. B252545 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 10, 2014) (unpublished), a plaintiff obtained a hefty $537,657.49 judgment against former employer for unpaid salary and other benefits.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 In Amin’s Oil, Inc. v. Indrogit Biswas, Case No. B242081 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 5, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff employer sued defendant for embezzlement/conversion, with defendant ex-employee suing for unpaid overtime wages.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,
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).
Fee Compensation for Work in Related Insurance Action No Abuse of Discretion. Labor Code sections 3706/3709 have a mandatory fee-shifting provision in a case where a judgment is entered in a lawsuit for workplace injury under circumstances where the employer failed to obtain workers compensation insurance. These special fee-shifting provisions were operative
Fee Recovery Carved Out Under Labor Code Section 1194. Justice Fybel, as the 3-0 panel author in Arreola v. One More Productions, Case No. G047467 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 5, 2014) (unpublished), affirmed denial of an attorney’s fees request of $27,265 to the defense under Labor Code former section 218.5. Once
Rental Inhabitability Battles Are Contractual, Giving Rise to 1717 Fee Exposure, While Limited Success On Minimum Wage Mandatory Fee-Shifting Claims Requires Apportionment and Possible Reduction. This next case is hard to pigeonhole, because it involves cross-over issues in the Landlord/Tenant and Employment post sites. However, Staley v. Carlson, Case No. A133115 (1st Dist.,
Judgment Roll Limited Appeal; Trial Court Found Apportionment Not Needed, And Defendant Did Not Identify Fee Entitlement Basis for Winning $10 Business Defamation Award. This next case, in our view, can well encapsulate many results we have seen over the years on fee disputes. One party wins a small damages award under a
Interrelatedness of Contract/Wage Nonpayment Administrative Proceedings and Trade Secret Bad Faith Justified Sustaining of Lower Court Awards. Plaintiff lost both DLSE administrative proceedings and a breach of contract/trade secret case against various defendants, with the lower court then awarding one defendant Labor Code section 98.2 fees of $43,881.25 for winning the DLSE appeal/beating
