Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions Also Not Available Because That Would Thwart The Pro-Employee Cost-Shifting Statutory Provisions.
In Cruz v. Calop Business Systems, Inc., Case No. B337749 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 26, 2024) (unpublished), employee lost wage/hour and unfair competition claims after not opposing a defense summary judgment motion. However, no finding was ever made that employee’s case was brought in bad faith. Defendant moved to obtain attorney’s fees of $348,830 under two statutes: (1) Labor Code section 218.5, which requires a bad faith finding against an employee as a prerequisite to a defense fee award; and (2) Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 costs-of-proof sanctions for denying defense RFAs across the board. The lower court denied the fee requests, with the appellate court affirming those results. Given the lack of a finding of bad faith, no 218.5 fees were allowable to the defense. With respect to the costs-of-proof sanctions, the parties agreed that the wage claims were intertwined with the nonwage claims, so section 2033.420 could not be used to subvert the 218.5 fee restrictions.