Section 218.5 - Award of attorney's fees

17 Citing briefs

  1. KIRBY v. IMMOOS FIRE PROTECTION

    Appellants' Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed May 10, 2011

    Trial courts have broad discretion in the matter of attorney’s fees.'* (Contractors Labor Pool, Inc. v. Westway Contractors, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 152, 169; Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.) C. The Legislature and This Court Have Determined that the Term “Action” Refers to a “Lawsuit” Immoosasserts that when the Legislature chose the term “action”for the second paragraph of section 218.5, it really meant “cause of action,” even thoughit did not take the simple step of including those two additional '* Courts have exercised this discretion to preclude two-way fee shifting when a two-way claim is “inextricably” intertwined with one-way claims. (See Lopez v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2010, No. C 08-05396 SI) 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136352, 4 (“Lopez”) (refusing to apply section 218.5 to action to recover overtime pay and straight-time because “any claims for which plaintiff would recover at a straight-time rate, rather than an overtime rate, were inextricably linked with the issue of whether he wasentitled to overtime”); Kline v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2010, No. C09-00742 SI) 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69623, 5; see also Turner, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at 1059-1060.) In light of Lopez and McGann,Kirby is willing to submit supplemental briefing on the effect of bringing meal and rest claims alongside “minimum wage and overtime” claims as well as on any other issues that would assist the Court in its analysis.

  2. KIRBY v. IMMOOS FIRE PROTECTION

    Appellants' Request for Judicial Notice

    Filed August 27, 2010

    Slip op. at 6. SHARE | POSTED BY STEVEN G. PEARL AT 9:52 AM al LABELS: ATTORNEY FEES, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, REST BREAKS The California Wage and Hour Law Blog: Court of Appeal Affirms Section 218.5 Attorn... Page 2 of 8 NOW AVAILABLE FROM CONTINUING EDUCATION OF THE BAR (CEB) California Wage and Hour Law andLitigation, Co- Authoredby Steven G. Pearl ABOUT ME STEVEN G. PEARL ENCINO, CALIFORNIA “Steven G. Pearl is an attorney and mediatorin Los Angeles, California. He is a co-authorof California Wage and HourLaw and Litigation, published by California's leading legal publisher, Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB). VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE CVof Steven G. Pearl LINKS TO RELATED PAGES The Pearl LawFirm, A Professional Corporation http://cawageandhourlaw.blogspot.

  3. KIRBY v. IMMOOS FIRE PROTECTION

    Appellants' Amended Request for Judicial Notice

    Filed September 27, 2010

    After reviewing the legislative history, the Court then held that the section 1194 exceptionto section 218.5 applies "only to causes of action for unpaid minimumand overtime wages." Slip op. at 6, We harmonizesections 218.5 and 1194 byholding that section 218.5 applies to causes of action alleging nonpaymentof wages,fringe benefits, or contributions to health, welfare and pension funds.[f, in the samecase, a plaintiff adds a cause of action for nonpayment of minimum wages or overtime, a defendant cannot recoverattorney's fees for work in defending against the minimum wage orovertime claims. Nonetheless, the addition of a claim for unpaid minimum wages or overtime does not preclude recoverybya prevailing defendant for a canse of action unrelated to the minimumwage or overtime claim so long as astatute or contract provides forfee shifting in favor of the defendant.

  4. KIRBY v. IMMOOS FIRE PROTECTION

    Appellants' Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed May 10, 2011

    : A.B. No. 2509—Steinberg. An act'to amend Sections 98.1, 98.2, 203.1, 218.5, 226, 350, 351, and 1174 of,and to add Sections 218.6 and 226.7 to, the Labor Code, relating to employment. 2000 Feb. 24—Assembly Rule 49(a) suspended.

  5. Johnson et al v. Hewlett-Packard Company

    MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration

    Filed May 6, 2014

    5 to a motion for fees made after the amended statute became effective, but after the underlying case was decided. The trial court denied the motion for attorneys’ fees based on Cal. Labor § 218.5. The parties’ briefing on this issue and the trial court’s order are attached as Exhibits 1-4 to the Case3:09-cv-03596-CRB Document317 Filed05/06/14 Page2 of 7 3 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration Case No. 3:09-cv-003596-CRB, Johnson, et al., v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

  6. Folck v. Lennar Corporation et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Action or Alternatively, Request for Jury Trial Regarding Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

    Filed November 1, 2017

    Also, the statute prohibits fee awards to employers in most cases, stating that “if the prevailing party in the court action is not an employee, attorney fees and costs shall be awarded pursuant to this section only if the court finds that the employee brought the court action in bad faith.” (See Cal. Labor Code § 218.5 (West 2014) (emphasis added).) On discrimination claims such as Mr. Folck’s allegations of disability and age discrimination, and his claim for medical leave discrimination, California law provides for recovery of attorney fees by employees under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Government Code Section 12940 (a), et seq., and the California Case 3:17-cv-00992-L-NLS Document 23 Filed 11/01/17 PageID.283 Page 25 of 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration 17-CV-00992-L-NLS 20 Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), Government Code Section 12945.

  7. Bloomquist v. Covance, Inc. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed October 20, 2016

    17 18 19 20 21 22 23 In any action; This section shall not apply to an • Cal. Lab. Code § 218.5 [unlawful withholding of wages in the court action; action brought by the Labor Commissioner. • Cal. Lab. Code § 972 [fraudulent solicitation of employees] person.. .is liable to the party aggrieved, in a civil action, ... 24 the court shall;a (( 7} U 25 26 ...any 27 28 1LA01\VISQK\73QQ29.1_____________ _____ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS Case 3:16-cv-02559-BAS-BLM Document 6-1 Filed 10/20/16 Page 13 of 21 1

  8. GOONEWARDENE v. ADP

    Amicus Curiae Brief of Paychex, Inc.

    Filed July 25, 2017

    Unlike most claims, however, Labor Codeviolations typically permit an employee to recovertheir attorneys’ fees. See, e.g., Cal. Lab. Code §§ 218.5, 226(e), 226(h), 233(e), 1194, 2699(g). Manyof these are one-way fees shifting provisions, which further increases an employer’s costs of wage andhourlitigation.

  9. Donisha Shann et al v. Durham School Services, L.P.

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Set Aside Judgment RE: Order on Motion to Dismiss Case, 23

    Filed November 29, 2016

    67. Additionally, Plaintiff and Plaintiff California Subclass Class “A” are entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs, pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 218.5, 226, 558, 1194, and prejudgment interest. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LABOR CODE § 2810.

  10. Wren et al v. RGIS Inventory Specialists

    MOTION for Settlement

    Filed July 9, 2010

    Similarly, plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under California, Washington, Oregon, and Illinois laws. See California (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 218.5, 218.6, 226.