Plaintiffs’ Pleading Were Broad and Only Dealt With Unpaid Wages. In the companion cases of Evangelina Tun Cun v. Cafe Tiramisu LLC, Case No. A131240 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 30, 2011) (unpublished) and Maria Tun Cun v. Cafe Tiramisu LLC, Case No. A131241 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 30, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiffs […]
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District, Division 5 in McGaha v. Mountain High Resort Assn., Case No. B2227086 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 22, 2011) (unpublished) affirmed a denial of $50,319.50 attorney’s fees to defendant employer after dismissal without prejudice of various work-related claims brought by plaintiff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
Issue is KIrby/UPS Labor Code sections 218.5 and 1194 Interplay. Two cases–Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. and United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases (McGann)–are currently pending before the California Supreme Court. They discuss the issue of whether a prevailing employer may be awarded attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 218.5 (which
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)
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 Trealoff v. Forest River, Inc., Case No. E048818 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 6, 2011) (unpublished) was a case where an ex-employee won sizable jury verdicts, including punitive damages, for
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
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.
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),
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
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?
