Reversal Of $280,794 Fee Recovery As A Matter Of Law Because No Fee Entitlement Was Found. On May 1, 2020, we posted on Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, Case No. B293625 (2d Dist., Div. 8 April 30, 2020), an unpublished decision at the time, where the 2/8 DCA reversed as a matter of […]
Case Demonstrates How Fee Claimant Must Have Solid Fee Entitlement Basis (Not Shifting Grounds At The Last Moment) And Discusses When Settlement Demands Are Admissible In Fee Proceedings. This next opinion discusses several aspects of fee motions, oppositions, replies, and supplemental papers all pointing to a universal truth: that fee motions primarily involve credibility
Appeal To Superior Court Of Labor Commissioner’s Ruling Was Dismissed For Employer’s Failure To Post The Required Undertaking Or Otherwise Obtain A Waiver Of Same. Labor Code section 98.2(c) provides for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees against the unsuccessful party appealing a decision of the Labor Commissioner to the superior court. Rather than
Reason Was That Plaintiff Only Had Limited Success, So No Abuse Of Discretion In The Reduction By The Lower Court. So, a plaintiff prevails on a wage/hour claim for unpaid wages under Labor Code section 218.5, but only gets a minimal award which was limited success when other claims are considered? Does that plaintiff
“Weinsten Tax” Meant To Disincentivize Sexual Perpetrators/Harassing Employers From Trying To Prevent Reporting By Victims. As a response to some sexual harassers/abusers requiring use of confidentiality agreements to silence victims, Congress in December 2017 amended the Tax Code in what has been dubbed the “Weinstein tax.” Several bloggers indicate the repercussions of this.
Former Employee Achieved Her Litigation Objectives With Set Of Facts Common To All Causes Of Action. In Gwin v. Natvan, Case No. B292990 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 1, 2019) (unpublished), former employee sued employer and its vice-president (husband of employer’s owner) asserting 13 separate causes of action – several of which allowed
The Fees Award Against Employer Had Been Affirmed By The Sixth District Three Years Prior, The CEO Could Not Prove Employee’s Alter Ego Claims Were Frivolous, But Employer’s Motion To Release Surety Bond So Frivolous It Warranted 6th District’s Issuance Of Sanctions On Its Own Motion. We originally posted on Khanna v. Sonasoft
Employer’s Failure To Include Premium Pay On Wage Statements For “On Duty” Meal And Rest Periods Did Not Trigger Penalties Because Premium Pay Is A Statutory Remedy For An Employer’s Conduct – Not An Amount “Earned” By The Employee. A certified class of former and current non-exempt employees brought a lawsuit against their
Mandatory Language Of Fee Clause Demonstrated Substantive Unconscionability, Which Was Not Supplanted By More General Reference To JAMS Employment Rules Which Were More Discretionary In Nature. We commend employment attorneys to read Randall v. Veros Credit, LLC, Case No. G056463 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 17, 2019) (unpublished), where a trial judge denied an
Almost $1.5 Million In Fees/Costs Sought, But Ultimate Affirmed Award Was About $649,000. The next case is an interesting example of how a trial judge’s decision to not credit prior fee awards to an employment contingency attorney was affirmed because there was not sufficient foundation to show the prior awards were similar to the
