Net Fee Award To Plaintiff Was $3,709.19, Because She Won (Getting Fees) and Employer Won (Getting Fees).
Sharif v. Mehusa, Inc., Case No. B255578 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 14, 2015) (partially published) is an interesting decision which recognizes two things: (1) fee recovery can be determined after offsetting “dueling” fee-shifting statutes; and (2) costs awards under statutes do not necessarily depend on CCP § 1032 routine cost restrictions.
In this one, former employee recovered on her Equal Pay Act claims but her former employer prevailed on her overtime/wage claims, with both sets of claims having prevailing party fee-shifting implications. (Note to readers—the lower court found that an amendment to Labor Code section 218.5, the overtime/wage claims, did not apply retroactively to this case, a determination not challenged from that we see.) In the end, the lower court found that employee’s fee claims were too excessive, but awarded some fees, and then award employer some fees, resulting in a net fee award of $3,709.19 to employee, who appealed.
No different result on appeal.
The appellate court agreed that “dueling” fee-shifting statutes could be offset against each other as far as fee awards to different prevailing parties depending on the claims. Simply because a plaintiff combined claims should not preclude the defense from recovering its fees on plaintiff’s wage claims. Secondarily, the reviewing court found that Labor Code section 218.5 did allow costs to the prevailing party, which meant the defense was entitled to them and should not be held to the more restrictive routine costs prevailing party definition under CCP § 1032.