Cases: Employment

Employment/Special Fee Shifting Statute (Pen. Code, § 502)/Reasonableness Of Fees/Allocation/Substantiation Of Fees: $980,373.50 Fee Award To Ex-Employee Not Paid All His Promised Commissions And Subject To Personal Computer Tampering Affirmed On App

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Appellate Court Found Lower Court Correct to View L.A. Attorneys As Within San Bernardino Venue and Necessary Given Earlier Misfortunes with Local Attorneys.      Trealoff v. Forest River, Inc., Case No. E048818 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 6, 2011) (unpublished) was a case where an ex-employee won sizable jury verdicts, including punitive damages, for […]

Employment/Cases Under Review: Second District, Division 8 Denies Fees To Prevailing Defendant In Meal And Rest Break Premiums Case

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Employment

  Issue Is Under Review by California Supreme Court in UPS Wage and Hour Cases (McGann).      In our February 26, 2011 post, we discussed United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases (McGann), 192 Cal.App.4th 1425, where the Second District, Division 8 decided that a prevailing defendant employer is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees

Employment/Prevailing Party: Breach Of Partnership Agreement Claim Did Trigger Unpaid Wage Fee Shifting Statute

Cases: Employment, Cases: Prevailing Party

  However, Lower Court Correctly Determined Plaintiff Was Not Prevailing Party.      Labor Code section 218.5 is a prevailing party fee-shifting provision for claims involving unpaid wages. That section was central to the next case, specifically with the question funneling down to who prevailed.      In Lutz v. Sortwell, Case No. D055792 (4th Dist., Div.

Employment: Second District, Division 8 Concludes Labor Code Section 1194 Is Specific Statute Preventing Two Way Fee-Shifting For Overtime Compensation Claims That Are Joined With Other Claims

Cases: Employment

Section 1194 Harmonized With Labor Code Section 218.5; But Routine Costs Are Available For Winning Employer.      Here is an interesting case involving statutory interpretation of interest to employment practitioners who follow us.      In United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases, Case No. B221709 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 24, 2011) (certified for publication),

Employment: Regents Of The University Of California Cannot Be Socked With

Cases: Employment

  Fee Recovery In Pension Eligibility Funds Dispute Regents Is Constitutionally Immune from Labor Code section 218.5 Exposure in this Context.      In a first-impression case, the Fourth District, Division One decided that the Regents of the University of California cannot be saddled with fee exposure under Labor Code section 218.5, a normal mandatory fee-shifting

Employment: Winning Corporate Individual Owner Sued As Alter Ego Entitled To Fee Shifting Under Labor Code Section 218.5

Cases: Employment

  First District, Division 3 Applies Analogous Civil Code Section 1717 Principles.      Labor Code section 218.5 allows for recovery of attorney’s fees by the prevailing party in certain wage/hour/benefits disputes. However, what happens if a plaintiff sues a corporate owner as an alter ego and loses? Does the winning individual defendant get fees?     

Employment: $7,475 In Fees Awarded To Plaintiff Employee For Recovering $3,289.90 In Wage/Hour Dispute

Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Plaintiff’s Request for Over $58,500 In Fees Is Firmly Rejected.      Labor Code section 218.5 holds that a prevailing party in an action for nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health/welfare/pension fund contributions must be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees. It was that pesky word “reasonable” that resulted in a much diminished fee award than

Civil Rights And Prior Decision Update: Silguero Court Still Denies Fee Recovery Under A Petition For Rehearing

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment

FEHA-Based Fees Not Allowable to Other Defendants.      In our July 30, 2010 post, we reviewed Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc., Case No. B215179 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 30, 2010) (certified for partial publication), where a fee award went POOF! upon reversal of a demurrer sustained in favor of certain defendants.      However, apparently other

Poof! On Appeal, Employer Is No Longer the Prevailing Party, and Award of $23,532.50 in Fees and Costs is Vacated

Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

Second District, Division One Holds that a Tameny Claim Exists When Subsequent Employer Honors Putatively Invalid Restraint on Competition Entered Into Between Employee and Previous Employer – and Reversal of Attorney’s Fee Award Follows.      A Tameny claim is a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, under Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.,

Scroll to Top