Cases: Employment

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).

Employment: Former Employee Was Entitled To Award Of Fees Under Special Fee-Shifting Provision Involving Workplace Injury Where Workers Compensation Insurance Not In Place

Cases: Employment

  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

Employment: Defense Winning Independent Contractor Case Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Labor Code Former Section 218.5 Under The Circumstances

Cases: Employment

  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Fybel, as the 3-0 panel author in Arreola v. One More Productions, Case No. G047467 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 5, 2014) (unpublished), affirmed denial of an attorney’s fees request of $27,265 to the defense under Labor Code former section 218.5.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

Allocation/Employment/Landlord-Tenant/Section 1717: Wild Landlord/Tenant And Minimum Wage Earner Battle Means All Fee Awards Had To Be Reversed

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

  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.,

Employment/Reasonableness Of Fees: Wage/Hour Winning Plaintiff Getting $33,180 Fee Award For $11,700 Damages Judgment Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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

Allocation/Employment/Trade Secrets: Wage Nonpayment And Trade Secret Misappropriation Fee Recoveries To Prevailing Defendants Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Trade Secrets

  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

Employment/Indemnity: Former Employee’s Insistence On Own Counsel In Lawsuit Where Employer’s Insurer Willing To Appoint Attorney For Employee Did Not Go Well

Cases: Employment, Cases: Indemnity

  Employee’s Indemnity Request Under Labor Code Section 2802 Only Garnered Employee $1,908 In Fees/Costs Out Of Requested $807,421.22 In Defense Fees/Costs.      Labor Code section 2802 provides that an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his

Allocation/Employment/Section 1717: Employer Defendants Win $167,104.87 In Fees For Prevailing On Contract Claims, While Employee Winning On Wage/Hour Claim Receives $15,140 In Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 1717

  Trial Court Decision Affirmed on Appeal.       Plaintiff, a chief technology officer, sued his ex-employer and a couple of other employees, losing contract and conversion claims but winning about $20,000 on an unpaid wage/hour claim. Both sides then moved for attorney's fees. The trial court awarded the defendants $167,104.87 in fees on the contract

Employment: Employer Winning Wage Nonpayment Claim, Not Based On Minimum Wage Violation Where Attorney’s Fees Requested At Initiation Of Suit, Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Employment

  Lower Court Fee Denial Reversed on Appeal.      Relying on Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 53 Cal.4th 1244, 1251 (2012) and Aleman v. Air Touch Cellular, 209 Cal.App.4th 556, 580 (2012), the appellate panel in Ayala v. Aldersgate Investment, LLC, Case No. B244513 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 21, 2013) (unpublished) reversed a

Scroll to Top