Cases: Employment

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(2012), the appellate panel in Ayala v. Aldersgate Investment, LLC, Case No. B244513 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 21, 2013) (unpublished) reversed a

Employment: Reversal Of Fortune–Employees Winning $346,947 In Attorney’s Fees Under Catalyst Unpaid Wages Case Found To Have Not Prevailed, Meaning Employers Get To Fix Fees Against Previously Winning Employees

Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

  Employers Sought Over $2.2 Million in Costs And Fees, Previously Denied But Get a Second Chance Against Losing Employees.      Zalewa v. Tempo Research Corp., Case No. B238142 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 1, 2013) (unpublished) is a wild “reversal of fortune” case on appeal.      This was a remand from a previous appeal

Appealability/Arbitration/Deadlines/Employment/Indemnity: Attorney’s Fees Powerball — Lots Of Unpublished Decisions On Numerous Issues

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Employment, Cases: Indemnity

  Bolgar v. Glen Donald Apartments, Inc., Case No. B241636 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 26, 2013) (Unpublished).      Although challenging a $71,934.65 fee award as an abuse of discretion, appellant did not go very far based on an inadequate record. None of the fee motion papers were included on appeal, so that the appellate

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

Scroll to Top