Employee Had Requested Fees Of $168,749.47 After Garnering Compensatory Award Of $6,958.36.
This case is another example of how non-compensable claim allocation and limited success can lead to a substantial reduction of a fee request even where there is some fee entitlement basis.
In Caballero v. Bill Muncey Industries, Inc., Case No. D076628 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 17, 2021) (unpublished), an employee cook at Galley at the Marina restaurant sued an individual and company who he believed were employers under wage/hour laws (including meal and rest break statutes) as well as the Unfair Competition Law. It looks like employee sued on behalf of a class, but certification was denied, and no recovery was had on the UCL claim. Eventually, the individual was not found liable, but the company was found to have violated unpaid overtime and wage statement violations to the tune of $6,958.36. Employee moved to recover $168,749.47 in fees (the full value of services—with some entitlement existing, but not for losing meal/rest break claims which are not compensable under wage/hour laws), but the lower court only awarded $17,234, apportioning out non-compensable fees on some claims and also reducing for employee’s limited success in the litigation overall.
That determination was affirmed by the 4/1 DCA. After all, employee only prevailed against one defendant and only prevailed on two minor wage/hour claims, with the records showing that an apportionment was possible but one which was eschewed by employee’s counsel wanting the whole thing (not a good strategy, based on many, many prior blog posts). The problem for employee is that non-compensable claims which are apportionable and limited success are prime candidates for reduction of a large fee request where there are modest returns. That was the “end result” conclusion by the trial court, with the Court of Appeal finding no abuse of discretion in what was decided in the superior court fee proceedings.
Comments