2/8 DCA Reinstates Fees Award Under Wage/Hour Statutes After California Supreme Court Remand. On August 26, 2022, we posted on Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, Case No. B293625 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 25, 2022), which was unpublished at the time. We can now report it was published on September 12, 2022. Here
Court Of Appeal Follows Analogous Reasoning Which Relates To Labor Code Section 1194. In Lohman v. City of Mountain View, Case No. H046681 et seq. (6th Dist. Sept. 7, 2022) (unpublished), the Sixth District reversed a $10,082 routine costs award—a sixth of the ask—against a nonprevailing employee plaintiff under a California Fair Pay Act,
Naranjo Decision Changed The Landscape. In Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, Case No. B293625 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 25, 2022) (unpublished), the 2/8 DCA had to revisit its denial of attorney’s fees to a plaintiff employee alleging missed rest and meal break violations and waiting penalties even though the lower court had
Judge Finds That Fee Award Of $342,782.50 Is Reasonable In Waiting-Time Penalties Case. On June 17, 2022, the Hon. R. Gary Klausner issued a fee award to the prevailing plaintiff in a waiting-time penalties case. Caley Rae Pavillard v. Ignite International, Ltd. et al., USDC Central District No. 2:21-cv-01306-RGK-Ex.
Even Though Plaintiff Principally Brought The Case Based On Greed/Anger, Objective Factors Showed The Denied Commission Calculation Was Complex Such That No Frivolity Was Involved. We have discussed this issue in the past—Labor Code section 218.5 wage/hour cases allow fees to prevailing plaintiffs liberally, but only allow prevailing defendants to recover if a case
Rosenman Written Finding Requirement Did Not Apply To Statutory Costs Award, With 2/1 DCA Articulating A Split In Thinking On The Written Requirement Dictate of Rosenman. In Schoensiegel v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case Nos. B312628/B314633 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 24, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff lost her FEHA action based on a successful summary judgment
Lower Court, Determining That The $25,753.25 Paid To Plaintiff For His Work Exceeded The Minimum Wage Rate He Was Entitled To, Awarded Plaintiff $0 On His Wage Claim – Opening The Door For Defendant To Seek Fees Under Labor Code § 98.2(c) In Gantman v. Stephan, Schreiber & Tabachnick CPA’s, Case No. B291932 (2d
Lower Court Correctly Awarded Lodestar Fees And Properly Denied The Multiplier Request. The California Family Rights Act allows eligible employees to attend to family serious health conditions and bond with a newly born child. Government Code section 12965(b)(6) allows a trial judge discretion to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff, much like the
However, Denial Of Expert Fees Remanded Because Trial Judge May Have Believed He Had No Discretion To Award. Herron v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B295184 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 8, 2021) (unpublished) is an interesting case which shows how trial judges have wide discretion in awarding attorney’s fees of a reasonable
Penalties Will Be Recalculated And Likely Still Result In A Sizeable Penalty Award Despite Reversal, So Fee Award Was Not Disturbed. In Gunther v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Case No. D077313 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 1, 2021) (partially published; fee discussion published), Alaska Airlines was found to be in noncompliance with California state wage
