Net Result Was Some Were Affirmed And Some Reversed.
Madrigal v. CTV, LLC, Case Nos, F087500 et al. (5th Dist. Aug. 12, 2025) (unpublished) was a wage/hour employment case where the results were very mixed—plaintiff Madrigal voluntarily dismissed the case; plaintiff Silva accepted a $28,000 CCP § 998 offer; plaintiff Cortez obtained a $25,282 jury verdict; and employer counter-sued management employee Paim (who also brought claims against employer), with Paim’s claims dismissed and employer obtaining a $521 verdict against Paim. That led to lots of post-judgment motions for fees and costs.
Employer moved to recover costs and fees against plaintiff Madrigal, but that motion was denied because Madrigal’s case was not brought in bad faith. This denial was affirmed because the appellate court engrafted FEHA “bad faith” concepts into Labor Code section 218.5 in the absence of any published authority to otherwise assist, agreeing Madrigal’s case was not brought in bad faith.
Employer moved to recover costs against Paim, but the lower denied the motion as untimely and further indicated that the employer was not the prevailing party. Although the untimeliness ruling was reversed, the appellate court agreed Paim was not liable for costs because offsets on an equitable indemnity claim did not make employer the prevailing party.
Plaintiffs Silva and Cortez obtained a fees and costs award against third-party defendant Paim, but this was reversed because the two plaintiffs did not sue Paim, with no authority indicating that plaintiffs could recoup Labor Code statutory fees against a party they did not sue.