Reduction Of Lodestar In Half Was An Abuse Of Discretion Based Principally On Limited Success Analysis By Lower Court.
In Iloff v. LaPaille, Case No. A164651 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 26, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained an award of $19,341—about a third of his ask and less than the amount awarded by the Labor Commissioner—in a trial de novo from a Labor Commissioner award, which led to a fee entitlement under Labor Code section 98.2(a). The lower court applied a .5 negative multiplier based on numerous factors (including lack of success based on only recovering one-third of his compensatory “ask”), awarding plaintiff about $48,565 and prompting an appeal by plaintiff.
The fee award was remanded based on the lack of success reduction by the lower court. The 6.9% reduction for tasks that were clerical or inappropriate for a top-level attorney was no abuse of discretion. However, on remand, the lower court cannot compare plaintiff’s success with that achieved before the Labor Commissioner as far as a fee reduction But, because only a reasonable fee is allowable under section 98.2(a), there can be a reduction for successful/unsuccessful claims on remand. The fact that plaintiff was represented by a salaried government employee should not be considered as a fee reduction given other cases saying that attorneys should not be penalized for their retention arrangements on a pro bono or reduced arrangement. Finally, a lack of bad faith by the employer should not be factored into a fee reduction under section 98.2(a).