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 […]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
