Cases: Employment

Employment, Section 1717: Defendant Winning Independent Contractor Determination Against Real Estate Agent Under Labor Commissioner And De Novo Superior Court Action Was Entitled To $72,519.03 In Fees

Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 1717

Fees Were Justified Based On Broad Contractual Fees Clause.             In Peng v. F.M. Tarbell Co., Case No. B307484 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 27, 2021) (unpublished), a plaintiff—a licensed real estate agent—lost a fight on whether he was an employee, versus an independent contractor, both at a Labor Commissioner and a superior court de

Employment, SLAPP: Reversal Of Defendant’s Successful SLAPP Motion Necessitated Reversal Of Defendant’s $44,800 § 425.16(c)(1) Attorney Fees Award.

Cases: Employment, Cases: SLAPP

The Protected Activity Claimed By Defendant Supported Only An Element Of Plaintiff’s Causes Of Action, But Did Not Subject Those Causes Of Action To A Challenge Under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.             In Verceles v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., Case No. B303182 (2d Dist., Div. 7 April 19, 2021) (unpublished), FEHA plaintiff

Employment: Appellate Court Refused To Award Appellate Fees To Three Prevailing Respondent Employees In Wage/Hour Overtime Case

Cases: Employment

Reason Was That Respondents Wanted 1.33 Positive Enhancement To The Lodestar Appellate Fee Request, Necessitating A Remand To The Trial Court To Determine Appellate Fees.             In Frattini v. First American Title Co. of Napa, Case No. A158995 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 30, 2021) (unpublished), three misclassified employees won a total of $414,743.80 against

Allocation, Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees: Employee’s Limited Success On Some Compensable Wage/Hour Claims Led To Affirmance Of $17,234 Fee Award

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

Employee Had Requested Fees Of $168,749.47 After Garnering Compensatory Award Of $6,958.36.             This case is another example of how non-compensable claim allocation and limited success can lead to a substantial reduction of a fee request even where there is some fee entitlement basis.             In Caballero v. Bill Muncey Industries, Inc., Case No. D076628

Allocation, Employment, Mulitpliers, Private Attorney General: 1/1 DCA Reverses $2,905,200 In PAGA Penalties Against Defendant, But Affirms $7,793,030 In Attorney Fees Inclusive Of A 2.0 Multiplier

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Fees Award Was Supported By PAGA, Section 1021.5, And The Catalyst Theory, And Apportionment Of Fees Among The Retaliation And PAGA Claims Was Neither Necessary Nor Possible, While Complexity Of Issues And Skill Of Attorneys Supported Multiplier In This Intensely Litigated Case.             In Sargeant v. Board of Trustees of The California State University,

Allocation, Civil Rights, Costs, Employment: Former Employer Properly Was Denied Attorney’s Fees Where FEHA Case Had Some Substance

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

However, 2/3 DCA Follows Roman Opinion On When To Award Costs On Non-FEHA Claims.             In Chevreaux v. Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, Case Nos. B291268/B292937 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 24, 2021) (unpublished), a jury returned a defense verdict in favor of a former employer on a non-FEHA, Tameny retaliation claim after she dismissed

Costs, Employment: Trial Court’s Costs Award To Defendant Prevailing Against FEHA And DJOA Claims Proper Where The Costs Were Awarded Only For The DJOA Claims

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

Costs May Not Be Awarded To Prevailing FEHA Defendants Unless Plaintiff’s Action Was Frivolous, Unreasonable, Or Groundless When Brought Or Continued, But A Trial Court May Award Costs To A Prevailing Defendant For Non-FEHA Claims Litigated With FEHA Claims.             In Jones v. Quality Coast, Case No. B297425 (2d Dist., Div.5 February 22, 2021) (unpublished),

Deadlines, Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees: $84,107.50 Fee Award, With Stipulated-To Small Reduction, Affirmed On Appeal In Wage/Hour Win After Two-Day Bench Trial

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Small Claims Work Excluded, So The Ultimate Modified Award Was $83,555; Compensatory Award Was $30,929.94 Plus Interest.             In Ojeda v. Azulay, Case No. B302440 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 10, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff employee prevailed against defendant employers on three of eight Labor Code claims after a two-day bench trial, and was awarded $30,929.94

Appealability, Employment, Intervenors, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Bevy Of Appealability Issues And Prevailing Party Issues Were Resolved By 4/1 DCA Dispute Between Former Employer And Employee Over Return And Use Of Documents On A Jump Drive

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Employment, Cases: Intervenors, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Employee Did Prevail On Employer’s Contract Claims, But Lower Court’s Reduced Fee Award For Prevailing On Labor Code Claims Was No Abuse Of Discretion—Given Attorney Intervenors Did Timely Appeal And Contest Merits Based On Their Attorney’s Lien Interest In Fees/Costs Awards.             This next case, Premier Mechanical Group, Inc. v. Harvey (Edwards), Case No. D075663

Employment: Reversal Of Shoulder Injury Portion Of Jury Verdict Required A Retrial And Reversal Of $503,273.50 FEHA Fee Recovery Award Until Retrial/Settlement Is Achieved

Cases: Employment

Case Is Must Reading On Reasonable Accommodation/Interactive Process FEHA Claims.             FEHA plaintiff in Shirvanyan v. L.A. Community College Dist., Case Nos. B296593/B297419 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 30, 2020 unpublished; Dec. 29, 2020 published) won a $2,899,670 economic/emotional distress damages award based on claims that District failed to make reasonable accommodations and engage in

Scroll to Top