Cases: Employment

Employment/Costs/Reasonableness Of Fees: Winning Plaintiff Did Get Lost Wage Attorney’s Fees, But Only $60,000 Out Of Requested $260,817.50

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Costs Taxed for Korean Interpreters and Discovery Referee Expenses.      Plaintiff, an ex-employee, did win compensatory and some punitive damages from his former employer, doing so through a complaint that included a lost wage claim. Winner then requested $260,817.60 in attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 218.5, a pro-plaintiff lost wage fee-shifting statute, and […]

Arbitration/Employment: Contractual Arbitration Clause Invalidated, Among Other Things, Because Attorney’s Fees Granted To Mere Prevailing Party On FEHA Claims

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Unconscionability

  Employee Won Substantive Unconscionability Argument Based on Absence of Frivolousness Requirement for Employer FEHA Fee Recovery.      Normally under FEHA, a prevailing defendant (usually, an employer) can only recoup fees if it proves that plaintiff employee’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or brought in bad faith. What happens when an employer inserts an

Employment: Employee Winning Contractual Severance/Bonus/Vacation Pay Awards Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under Labor Code Section 218.5

Cases: Employment

  Breach of Contract Actions Within Section 218.5’s Ambit.       Former employee won contractual awards for severance pay, bonus pay, and vacation pay penalties from ex-employer (totaling about $172,523), enhanced by a further attorney’s fees award of $101,100 under Labor Code section 218.5 (a mandatory fee-shifting statute allowing fees to the prevailing party in "any

Employment/POOF!: Appellate Court’s Reversal Of Two Labor Claims With Fee Recovery And One Independent Sales Act Claim With Fee Recovery Means That Plaintiff’s $889,000 Fee Award Goes POOF!

Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

Reversal of Fortune on Appeal to Plaintiff Winning Substantial Jury Verdict and Substantial Attorney’s Fees Below.      Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, as author for a 3-0 panel in Gardner v. Baby Trend, Inc., Case No. G043451 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 13, 2012) (unpublished), shows how reversal on the merits–even of a large substantial jury

Employment/Special Fee Shifting Statute: State Labor Commissioner Entitled To Fee/Costs Under Labor Code Section 98.7 Against Employer Held Liable To Employee For Retaliation And Employee Gets Indemnification Fees/Costs Under Labor Code Section 2802 After

Cases: Employment, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Respective Fee/Costs Awards of $232,435.50 and $101,078 Are Sustained.      Just to show you that the losing cases can unleash a lot of fee/costs exposure based on Labor Code statutes, the next one is a case in point.      In 1538 Cahuenga Partners, LLC v. Fabe, Case No. B222023 (consolidated) (2d Dist., Div. 8

Employment: Substantial Fee Awards To Employer Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Employment

  Plaintiffs’ Actions for Split Shift and Reporting Time Pay Falls Within Unilateral, Pro-Plaintiff Fee Shifting Provision—Not Allowing for Defense Recovery.      Here is a big one for you employment lawyers out there.      In Aleman v. AirTouch Cellar, Case No. B231142 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 21, 2011) (certified for publication), employer prevailed on

Employment: 2d Dist., Div. 5 Disallows Fees To Defendant Employer in Issue Before California Supreme Court In Kirby And UPS Wage & Hour Cases.

Cases: Employment

       The Second District, Division 5 in McGaha v. Mountain High Resort Assn., Case No. B2227086 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 22, 2011) (unpublished) affirmed a denial of $50,319.50 attorney’s fees to defendant employer after dismissal without prejudice of various work-related claims brought by plaintiff employee. The fee refusal was sustained based on an

Indemnity: Labor Code § 2802 Does Not Require An Employer To Reimburse Employee For Attorney’s Fees In Successfully Defensing Employer Claims

Cases: Employment, Cases: Indemnity

  Court of Appeal Also Determines Corporations Code section 317 Mandatory Indemnification Provisions Do Not Apply to LLCs.      Justice Ikola, in a 3-0 decision of our local Fourth District, Division 3, made two important determinations on its behalf in Nicholas Laboratories, LLC v. Chen, Case No. G044105 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 12, 2011)

Scroll to Top