Court Opinion

ID: 9899800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 18:01:50.54563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:49.835513
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        NOV 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CALEY RAE PAVILLARD, an individual,             No.    22-55633

                Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                D.C. No.
 v.                                             2:21-cv-01306-RGK-E

IGNITE INTERNATIONAL, LTD., a
Wyoming limited company,                        MEMORANDUM*

      Defendant-third-party-
      plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

JOSH RYAN, DBA Josh Ryan Photography;
L.A. MODELS, INC.,

                Third-party-defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

                     Argued and Submitted October 20, 2023
                              Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and R. COLLINS,** District

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the
Judge.

         Ignite International, Ltd. (“Ignite”) appeals the district court’s award of

attorneys’ fees and costs to Caley Rae Pavillard. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review an award of attorneys’ fees made pursuant to state law

for abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894,

898 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo whether a state statute permits attorneys’

fees. Kona Enters. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

         Ignite argues that Pavillard’s action under California Labor Code Section

203 is not one for nonpayment of wages, and therefore cannot give rise to an award

of attorneys’ fees and costs. We disagree. Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees

and costs in successful “action[s] brought for the nonpayment of wages.” Cal. Lab.

Code § 218.5. The phrase “action brought for the nonpayment of wages” means an

“action brought on account of nonpayment of wages.” Kirby v. Immoos Fire Prot.,

Inc., 53 Cal. 4th 1244, 1256, 274 P.3d 1160, 1167 (Cal. 2012). This is because

“[t]he words ‘nonpayment of wages’ . . . refer to an alleged legal violation, not a

desired remedy.” Id. The operative question is therefore what event “triggers a

violation” of the California Labor Code. Id. at 1257.

         Pavillard’s suit against Ignite was an action brought under Section 203,

which makes employers liable for waiting-time penalties when they willfully fail to

District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

                                             2
pay wages “in accordance with Section[] 201.” In her complaint, Pavillard

expressly pled a violation of Section 201(a). The event triggering the violation was

Ignite’s failure to pay Pavillard’s wages for the photoshoot. Therefore, the district

court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Pavillard attorneys’ fees and

costs under Section 218.5.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3