Cases: Employment

Class Action/Employment: $473,793 In Fees And Costs Awarded In FLSA Class Action Where $225,000 Awarded To Class

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Employment

  District Judge Rejected $1.7 Million In Fee and Costs Requested by Plaintiff’s Attorneys.      District Judge Michael Telesca, in Mendez v. The Radec Corporation, Case No. 03-cv-6342 (W.D.N.Y.), recently nixed plaintiffs’ attorneys’ request for a $1.7 million fees/costs award in a Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) class action. The class obtained a settlement recovery […]

Employment/Section 998: Overtime/Holiday Pay Wait Time Penalties Are A Form Of Wages, Not Costs, And Prejudgment Interest Is Not A Cost Such That These Components Properly Added To Compensatory Damages For Purposes Of Determining If Plaintiff Beat CCP &se

Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

  Plaintiff Did Beat 998 Offer When These Components Added to Damages, Justifying An Award of $158,822.85 In Discrimination/Wage and Hour Case Where Base Compensatory Damages Were $21,270.88.      As we know from studying cases under the “Employment” category, FEHA and certain Labor Code provisions have mandatory fee-shifting provisions, especially ones tilted in favor of

Employment: Losing Plaintiff Employees Are Not Subject To Fee Exposure On Split Shift Claim But Prevailing Defendant Can Recover Fees On Successfully Defending Reporting Time Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment

  Defense Allocation Required on Remand–First Published Decision Interpreting Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection.      To our knowledge, Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, Case No. 231142 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 20, 2012) (published) is the first published decision to apply Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 53 Cal.4th 1244 (2012) [discussed in our May 1,

Employment/POOF!: Labor Code Section 218.5 Fee Award To Employer In Class Action Case Vacated Based Upon Reversal Of Summary Adjudication On Vacation Benefit Pay Claim

Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

  $120,000 Fee Award Went POOF!      Labor Code section 218.5 requires a fee award to the prevailing party in any action brought for nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, except an action for which fees are recoverable under section 1194 and certain other actions. Employer obtained summary

Civil Rights: Although Some Fee Recovery In The Offing, $20,000 Fee Award Reversed For Failure To Consider Losing FEHA Plaintiff’s Ability To Pay

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment

  Federal and State Cases Require Consideration of “Pocketbook” Factor in FEHA Area.      Defendant must have been feeling pretty good. It had won a couple of prior appeals brought by a losing FEHA plaintiff/job applicant who unsuccessfully sued for national original discrimination under Title VII. Defendant moved for the fees in winning the two

Employment: Attorney’s Fees Recovery Not Permitted Where Plaintiff Employee Winning Labor Commissioner Award Against Employer Had Appeal Dismissed As Untimely On Jurisdictional Grounds

Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

  To Be Unsuccessful on Appeal, Employee Must Have Merits Tried By Superior Court And Besieged With a Zero Award.      Labor Code section 98.2(c) is a one-way fee shifting provision that penalizes an unsuccessful party who appeals a labor commissioner’s decision, mandating that the court assess attorney’s fees upon the unsuccessful appealing party. In

Civil Rights: Plaintiff Losing FEHA Case Against Individual Liable For $40,000 Fee Award Based Upon Prosecuting Frivolous Action

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment

  Plaintiff Placed On Notice of Fee Exposure; Ability to Pay Was Considered.      Generally, plaintiffs losing FEHA cases do not face fee or costs exposure, except for an important BUT. BUT they will face fee exposure if the plaintiff’s action is found to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in

Employment: California Supreme Court Decides That Meal/Rest Break Prevailers Cannot Claim Fee Recovery Under Labor Code Section 226.7

Cases: Employment

  It’s A Draw, in Long-Awaited Kirby Decision.      The California Supreme Court, in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., Case No. S185827 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Apr. 30, 2012) (certified for publication), decided that neither Labor Code section 1194 (a one-way fee shifting provision in favor of employees) nor Labor Code section 218.5 (two-way fee

Indemnity: Public Employee Who Incurred Legal Fees/Costs During Course Of Law Enforcement Investigations Not Leading To Any Court Proceedings/Actions Not Entitled To Reimbursement Under Government Code Sections 995/996.4 Or Labor Code Section 2802

Cases: Employment, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Lack of Court or Judicial Proceedings Was Dispositive.      Ms. Thornton, near the end of her term as a Board member of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, was appointed as an ALJ for the Board, a hire that was subsequently investigated by the State Auditor and Sacramento District Attorney’s Office for potential Government

Employment: Second District, Division 3 Holds That Fee Award For Wage/Hour/Itemized Wage Statement Violations Is Payable To Attorney, Not Client, Unless Fee Agreement Provides Otherwise

Cases: Employment

  Appellate Court Issues Mandate in Favor of Attorney Over $300,000 Labor Code Fee Award.      The Second District, Division 3, in Henry M. Lee Law Corp. v. Superior Court (Chang), Case No. B235305 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 16, 2012) (certified for publication), decided that a $300,000 fee award under Labor Code wage/hour/itemized wage

Scroll to Top