Cases: Employment

Employment: Employees Winning De Novo Superior Court Hearing After Losing A Berman Hearing Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees And Costs Under Labor Code Sections 1194 and 226

Cases: Employment

Labor Code Section 98.2(c) Is Not The Exclusive Fee-Shifting Statute, Such That General Labor Code Fee-Shifting Statutes Provide Authority For Fees And Costs.                Villalva v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corp., Case No. D082372 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 21, 2025) (published) confirmed that employees losing a Labor Commissioner Berman hearing can still seek attorney’s fees […]

Reasonableness Of Fees: Second Dist. Div. 8 Affirms $493K Fee Award And 1.8 Multiplier In FEHA Case

Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Attorney Fees Are Rather Discretionary, And The Trial Judge Is Usually In The Best Position To Exercise That Discretion.         Pamela Pollock alleged her supervisor, Michael Kelso, sexually harassed her and discriminated against her based on race by denying her a promotion. The trial court initially ruled the lawsuit was time-barred, but the California Supreme

Employment, Requests For Admission: Defendant Employer Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees For Defeating Wage/Hour Claims Because Nothing Showed The Action Was Brought In Bad Faith

Cases: Employment, Cases: Requests for Admission

Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Also Not Available Because That Would Thwart The Pro-Employee Cost-Shifting Statutory Provisions.                In Cruz v. Calop Business Systems, Inc., Case No. B337749 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 26, 2024) (unpublished), employee lost wage/hour and unfair competition claims after not opposing a defense summary judgment motion.  However, no finding was ever made that

Employment: Lower Court’s Denial Of Whistleblower Fees, Under Amended Fee Shifting Provision, Was Erroneous Because Newer Legislative Statute Was Retroactive In Nature Absent A Clear Direction Otherwise

Cases: Employment

$1.854 Million Fee Request Had To Be Reconsidered—Appellate Court Had No Opinion On Amount To Be Awarded.                Winston v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B323392 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 13, 2024) (published) is a case where a plaintiff whistleblower eventually prevailed during a jury trial, awarded $257,000 in damages against employer.  Employee

Allocation, Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 998: Costs-Shifting Under CCP § 998 Displaced By More Specific Labor Code Provisions Relating To Costs For Or Against A Prevailing Employee

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 998

However, In Unpublished Part Of Decision, Appellate Court Affirmed A Small Fee Award Where Counsel Failed To Follow Lower Court’s Supplemental Briefing/Proof Instructions.                Chavez v. California Collision, LLC, Case No. A167658 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 10, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) is part of a continuing trend for appellate courts to honor

Employment: Reversal Of Information Practices Act Claim Meant That Fee/Costs Denial Had To Be Reversed—Published Decision On IPA Fee-Shifting Statute

Cases: Employment

However, On Remand, Court Had To Decide Who Prevailed On A Practical Level Anyway.                Wentworth v. Regents of the University of California, Case Nos. A168296/A168861 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 30, 2024) (published) shows how reversal of a claim bearing fee exposure will result in a reversal of a fee denial, as a general

Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 998: FEHA Plaintiff Finally Winning $1.25 Million In a Third Jury Trial, After An Earlier Appellate Reversal On The First Trial And A New Trial On The Second Trial, Was Properly Awarded $3,264,906 In Fees

Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 998

Both Sides Appealed, But Their Challenges Were Unsuccessful.                Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, Case No. B323715 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 30, 2024) (published) involved a long-standing dispute between plaintiff T.J. Simers, a controversial columnist, and defendant L.A. Times involving constructive termination, age discrimination, and disability discrimination claims under FEHA.  Needless to

Class Actions, Employment, POOF!: Reversal Of Class Action Summary Adjudication On Class Meal/Rest Breaks Claim Meant Substantial Fee Award Reversed Also

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Employment, Cases: POOF!

Plaintiffs’ Reasons To Not Reverse The Award Were Unpersuasive.                Acting Presiding Justice Segal, author on behalf of the 2/7 DCA in Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., Case No. B318867 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 19, 2024), confronted a very spirited opposition by plaintiffs/class winning substantial fees for why the reviewing court should not

Employment, Settlement: $226,000 Stipulated Amount For Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiffs Under PAGA Settlement Validated On Appeal

Cases: Employment, Cases: Settlement

The Defense Could Not Retract From Its Agreed-Upon Settlement Amount.                In Loudon v. DHSE, Inc., Case No. E081497 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 8, 2024) (unpublished), defendants agreed to settle a PAGA action through a written settlement agreement providing plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees of $226,000, or one-third of the PAGA settlement amount. 

Appealability, Arbitration, Employment, Preemption: $176,687.96 Fees And Sanctions Award For Employer’s Failure To Advance Fees Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Preemption

Employers Not Paying Fees Upfront Can Be Exposed To Further Arbitration Expenses Before the Axe Comes Down; Appellate Court Found No FAA Preemption, With This Preemption Issue Now Being Reviewed By The California Supreme Court.                Although unpublished, Costa-Fleeson v. Americor Funding, Inc., Case No. G062962 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 1, 2024) (unpublished) is

Scroll to Top