Lower Court, Determining That The $25,753.25 Paid To Plaintiff For His Work Exceeded The Minimum Wage Rate He Was Entitled To, Awarded Plaintiff $0 On His Wage Claim – Opening The Door For Defendant To Seek Fees Under Labor Code § 98.2(c)
In Gantman v. Stephan, Schreiber & Tabachnick CPA’s, Case No. B291932 (2d Dist., Div. 7 April 18, 2022) (unpublished), CPA plaintiff entered into a business relationship with defendant CPA firm. The relationship fell apart after only a few months, and plaintiff filed an unsuccessful wage claim with the Labor Commissioner. Plaintiff then appealed the adverse award to the superior court – claiming unpaid wages and unreimbursed expenses. (Labor Code § 98.2(a).) Although the lower court found plaintiff had been an employee of defendant, it found that an agreement had not been reached as to the hourly pay rate – resulting in plaintiff’s entitlement to only the $9/hour minimum wage rate at the time, not the $200/hour rate plaintiff sought. Because the $25,753.25 defendant had paid plaintiff for his work exceeded the minimum wage rate, the trial court awarded plaintiff $0 on his wage claim – which resulted in defendant’s entitlement to an award of attorney fees, which the lower court granted to the tune of $34,505. (Labor Code § 98.2(c).) Plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff, who was self-represented on appeal, failed to provide argument that the lower court erred in determining the legal basis for the award and/or abused its discretion in determining the amount of the award. Instead, plaintiff argued simply that defendant was not entitled to fees under section 98.2(c) because the lower court erred in awarding plaintiff $0 – a decision plaintiff had already appealed to no avail, and the result of which could no longer be reconsidered based on the lapse of time since the decision in that appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.264(b)(1).) As a result, the 2/7 DCA affirmed. Additionally, the panel awarded defendant recovery of its costs on appeal.
Comments