©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2024 Cal-Peculiarities | 113 contractually mandated control over the operator’s bank accounts, and that Shell could remove individual stations from the operator at any time. 322 5.12 Anti-Employer Rules Regarding Attorney Fees and Costs 5.12.1 Wage claims For claims seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages or overtime premium pay, California favors plaintiffs with a one-way fee-shifting provision that entitles only the prevailing employee to recover attorney fees.323 For claims seeking other forms of unpaid wages, a prevailing employee remains entitled to attorney fees, while the prevailing employer is so entitled only upon a finding that the employee sued in bad faith.324 Section 218.5 of the Labor Code originally provided, in an even-handed way, for prevailing-party attorney fees as to wage claims that did not involve minimum wages or overtime premium wages. Employers invoked this statute when they defeated claims seeking pay for denied meal periods or rest breaks. Employers could say that those claims were claims for “wages” because a 2007 California Supreme Court decision had held that meal and rest pay was a “wage,” not a “penalty.”325 In 2012, however, in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, the California Supreme Court deprived employers of this leverage. Kirby determined that claims for meal and rest pay are not claims for “wages” after all, but rather are claims for violation of the employer’s obligation to provide meal and rest breaks.326 Kirby implied that if the claims had involved wages instead of penalties, then an award of attorney fees to the prevailing employer would have been appropriate. The attention thus focused on section 218.5 prompted the Legislature in 2013 to amend the statute to tilt the playing field still further in favor of plaintiffs.327 Now, while section 218.5 continues to entitle employees to attorney fees when they win claims for unpaid wages, the statute entitles prevailing employers to attorney fees only if the court finds that the employee brought the lawsuit in bad faith.328 Meanwhile, as to actions for unpaid minimum or overtime premium wages, it remains the case that only the successful employee—and never the successful employer—is eligible to recover attorney fees.329 The Court of Appeal has denied an employer prevailing-party attorney fees where the claim was for split-shift premium pay (considered to be a claim for minimum wages), but has allowed fee applications where the claim was for reporting-time pay (considered to be a claim for unpaid wages at the employee’s regular rate).330 5.12.2 Court-enhanced attorney fees by use of multipliers Under federal statutes authorizing an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party, the award is simply the product of (a) the hours reasonably expended on the winning effort and (b) the reasonable rate for those hours. There is usually no after-the-fact multiplier or enhancement to augment the plaintiff attorney’s reward for pursuing a risky case,331 although there are rare circumstances where an enhancement may be appropriate.332 The Court of Appeal once agreed, opining that an attorney-fee enhancement would “at best serve no purpose and at worst encourage pursuit of unmeritorious claims.”333 But the California Supreme Court disagreed, holding that trial courts can grant an enhanced attorney-fee award to compensate plaintiff’s attorneys for the risk that they assume in taking a case on a contingent fee basis.334 Following that lead, the Court of Appeal has held that a trial court could grant an enhanced fee award to classaction plaintiffs’ counsel who took a PAGA case that raised significant complex legal issues of first impression.335 5.12.3 Attorney fees awarded even if plaintiff doesn’t win Sometimes plaintiffs seek prevailing-party attorney fees even though all they arguably accomplished was simply a voluntary change in the defendant’s course of conduct. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected attempts to rely on
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4