Trial Court Decision Affirmed on Appeal.
Plaintiff, a chief technology officer, sued his ex-employer and a couple of other employees, losing contract and conversion claims but winning about $20,000 on an unpaid wage/hour claim. Both sides then moved for attorney's fees. The trial court awarded the defendants $167,104.87 in fees on the contract claim (half of the defense fee request), and plaintiff $15,140 in fees out of a requested $151,000 on the wage/hour claim.
Plaintiff's appeal of both fees awards was unsuccessful in Marino v. Pro Sports & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. B233940 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 6, 2013) (unpublished).
Plaintiff argued that it was improper to award contractual fees to the two individuals because they had a "unity of interest" with the employer defendant losing the wage/hour claim. The appellate court found the "unity of interest" doctrine inapplicable given that the individual defendants did beat back an alter ego claim tethered to the contractually-based claim. However, it strongly implied--but did not have to decide--that the "unity of interest" doctrine in the fee area may have no further viability in light of Hsu v. Abarra [one of our Leading Cases]. See, e.g., Silver Creek, LLC v. Blackrock Realty Advisors, Inc., 173 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1541 (2009).
With respect to Plaintiff's claim that he should have gotten more, the appellate court found the trial court did not err in apportioning fees between claims he lost and claims he won, such that the smaller award for the wage/hour result was justified.
Comments