Cases: Employment

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

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

Scroll to Top