Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b393eb66-7c10-43bd-ba1a-b1d5291dd146
Timestamp: 2017-05-22 18:06:40
Document Index: 467702920

Matched Legal Cases: ['§17200', '§17200', '§17200', '§ 218', '§ 218', '§ 218']

Prevailing Defendant Entitled to Fee Award Unrelated To Claims Seeking Unpaid Wages | Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP - JDSupra
In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection Inc., 2010 DJDAR 11569 (2010) the Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal decided an appeal challenging an award of attorneys fees to an employer who successfully defended against allegations of labor violations by two employees.
Anthony Kirby and Rich Leech (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Immoos Fire Protection Inc. The complaint alleged six causes of action for violations of various labor laws as well as unfair competition (Business & Professions Code §17200).
Download PDF Prevailing Defendant Entitled to Fee Award Unrelated To Claims Seeking Unpaid Wages Posted on September 1, 2010 by David J. McMahon In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection Inc., 2010 DJDAR 11569 (2010) the Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal decided an appeal challenging an award of attorneys fees to an employer who successfully defended against allegations of labor violations by two employees. Anthony Kirby and Rich Leech (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Immoos Fire Protection Inc. The complaint alleged six causes of action for violations of various labor laws as well as unfair competition (Business & Professions Code §17200). The trial court rejected the Plaintiffs’ motion for class action certification. The Plaintiffs then dismissed with prejudice their complaint as to all causes of action. The trial court awarded the Defendant attorney fees of $49,846.05 for its defense of three of the six causes of action, including Labor Code violations and the §17200 claims. The Plaintiffs appealed the decision awarding the Defendant attorneys fees. The Court of Appeal noted that Labor Code § 218.5 provides for fee shifting in favor of the party that prevails on a claim for unpaid wages. The court noted, however, that § 218.5 does not allow employers to recover fees in any action for minimum or overtime wages. The Plaintiffs’ complaint included causes of action involving failure to pay minimum wages as well as other, non-wage claims. The court rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that a prevailing Defendant may not recover fees in a case that includes a claim for unpaid minimum or overtime wages. The court noted that attorney fees may still be awarded for unrelated claims subject to the fee-shifting provisions of § 218.5. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court’s award of attorney fees for Immoos non-wage related defense was proper. However, attorney fees awarded on two other causes of action was overruled as the award was miscalculated.
Prevailing Employer Is Entitled To Fee Award
Employer Is Not Entitled To A Fee Award In Case Alleging Unpaid Wages
Court Invalidates Fee Award Premised on Financial Ramifications on Non-Prevailing Party
Limitations on Attorney Fees Under Probate Code Section 17211
Attorney Fees Awards Subject to Offset Litigants' Preexisting Debts to the U.S. Government
Private Attorney General Fees are Only Available in an Action Against the Opposing Party
Discretion to Deny Costs and Attorney Fees to FEHA Plaintiffs Rests with the Trial Courts
Award of Attorney's Fees is Proper for Successful Anti-Slapp Motion in Addition to Fee Claims Related to Malicious Prosecution Action
Is a Court Allowed to Enhance a Fee Award Based on the Quality of Performance of Counsel?
Trial Court Must Make Findings Establishing A Reasonable Basis For Fee Award
Foreign Court Order Ruled Unenforceable: Court Nullifies Award of Attorneys Fees
More on Harvey Rosenfield's Initiative to Prohibit Broker and Installment Fees
Liability Insurance Carrier Only Required to Pay A Pro Rata Share of Fees Incurred In The Subrogated Recovery Context, Not The Entire Amount Under The "Made Whole" Doctrine