California Employment Law Appellate Report - Attorney's Fees
California Employment Law Appellate Report - Attorney's Fees
Most recent attorney's fees cases
In Villalva v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corp., Cal.App.5th (Jan. 23, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) held that Lab. Code § 98.2 (c) does not preclude attorney’s fees and costs for successful wage and hour plaintiffs who initially pursue Berman hearings.
Read more
Plaintiffs, train dispatchers, sued Defendant for unpaid wages. After a Berman hearing where their claims were denied, they prevailed in a bench trial. The trial court awarded them $200,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. Defendant appealed, arguing that § 98.2(c) only authorizes fees against unsuccessful appellants.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the award of fees and costs, following Eicher v. Advanced Business Integrators, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1363. It rejected Defendant’s argument that the superior court proceeding was a continuation of the administrative remedy, finding it to be an independent “action” or “civil action” under §§ 218.5, 226, and 119. The court distinguished this case from Sampson v. Parking Service 2000 Com, Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 212, where the employee prevailed at the Berman hearing and the employer unsuccessfully pursued a trial de novo. It also declined to consider dicta from Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109 and OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111 in support of Defendant’s arguments.
In Winston v. County of Los Angeles, Cal.App.5th (Dec. 17, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight), held that fee-shifting statutes apply retroactively to cases pending at the time of enactment, absent clear legislative intent to the contrary.
Read more
Plaintiff sued, alleging various claims including retaliation under Lab. Code § 1102.5. A jury found for Plaintiff solely on his § 1102.5 claim. Plaintiff moved for attorney’s fees under § 1102.5 (j), which was enacted while Plaintiff’s case was pending. The trial court denied the motion, because it did not find showing of retroactive application. Plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court’s order denying attorney’s fees. Reviewing Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917 and others, it found that California courts have “consistently held” that statutory provisions involving attorney fees are “procedural in nature and apply to pending litigation” (USS-Posco Industries v. Case (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 197, 201). Notably, the Court of Appeal rejected Defendant’s argument that “retroactive application of the statute impacts its substantive rights”, distinguishing California law from the federal case law examples cited by Defendant.
In Chavez v. California Collision, Cal.App.5th (Dec. 12, 2024), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Three), held that Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 218.5 preclude cost awards to defendants under Code Civ. Proc. § 998.
Read more
Plaintiffs, three auto shop workers, sued Defendants for various wage and hour violations. Two of the plaintiffs agreed to settle, while the third plaintiff (Zarate) did not. At trial, the jury found for Zarate on two causes of action (failure to pay overtime and failure to provide rest breaks) but awarded less than the amount Defendant had offered for settlement. The trial court awarded costs to Defendants under Code Civ. Proc. § 998 while granting Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees only in part. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part. Plaintiffs argued that the trial court’s amended February 2023 judgment, which merely added a costs and fees award, was its “comprehensive final judgment,” not its September 2022 judgment. The Court of Appeal disagreed, citing Torres v. City of San Diego (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 214, 222 in its finding that Plaintiffs’ challenge to the trial court’s interlocutory rulings was not timely. The court also found no error in the trial court’s partial award of attorney’s fees because Plaintiff’s counsel failed to properly segregate time entries, and the trial court was not required to follow the Laffey matrix or apply a lodestar multiplier. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s award of costs to Defendants, agreeing with Plaintiffs that, under Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 221, Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 218.5 displace Code Civ. Proc. § 998. Section 1194 “makes no mention of prevailing employers” (Plancich v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 308, 313, internal citations omitted), while Section 218.5 requires a finding of bad faith.
In Hoglund v. Sierra Nevada Memorial-Miners Hospital, Cal.App.5th (May 20, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) held that an employer’s ongoing inaction in response to discrimination complaints did not trigger the permanence exception to FEHA’s continuing violations doctrine.
Read more
Starting in 2011, Plaintiff experienced age-related harassment and adverse actions. In 2017, Defendant terminated her, replacing her with a younger coworker. After receiving a right-to-sue notice, Plaintiff sued for FEHA violations, wrongful termination, and failure to pay overtime. The trial court granted summary adjudication for Defendant on the retaliation claim but ruled for Plaintiff on all other claims except unpaid overtime. Defendant appealed and Plaintiff cross-appealed, challenging the denial of a tax neutralization adjustment.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed. It rejected Defendant’s argument that its actions “had acquired a degree of permanence in 2014,” finding that Defendant neither resolved Plaintiff’s issues nor communicated a refusal to do so. The court also rejected challenges to the damages award, noting that Defendant did not move for a new trial on that ground (Schroeder v. Auto Driveaway Co. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 908, 919). The court upheld the district court’s calculation of attorney’s fees based on the location of Plaintiff’s counsel, its award of a 1.5x multiplier based on contingent risk factor, and its awarding of costs. However, it denied Plaintiff’s cross-appeal for a tax neutralization adjustment, finding she failed to provide sufficient evidence to support it.
In Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc., Cal.App.5th (Mar. 27, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) held that employees who prevail in actions for unpaid minimum wage and overtime are entitled to reasonable litigation costs under Lab. Code § 1194 (a) “irrespective of the amount recovered.”
Read more
Plaintiff sued Defendant for failing to pay approximately $15,000 in minimum wage and overtime wages and $11,000 in unreimbursed expenses. The trial court awarded Plaintiff approximately $7,500 in unpaid wages but found no evidence to support his expense claim. Plaintiff sought $300,000 in attorney’s fees and $27,000 in costs, but the trial court denied both motions under Code Civ. Proc. § 1033(a), finding he had “acted in bad faith by artificially inflating his damages figure and including equity claims he never intended to pursue.”
Plaintiff appealed, arguing he was entitled to reasonable litigation costs under Lab. Code § 1194 (a). The Court of Appeal concurred, holding that Lab. Code § 1194 (a) and Code Civ. Proc. § 1033 (a) are irreconcilable but that the former should control because “that statute is more recently enacted and more specific.” Defendant, relying on Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 970, argued that the absence of a Code Civ. Proc. § 1033(a) carveout for FEHA cases precluded a similar exemption for wage and hour cases. The court disagreed, finding in Lab. Code § 1194 (a) “no analogous standard” to FEHA’s discretionary fee provision, and remanded to the trial court to determine reasonable fees and costs.