Plaintiffs’ Reasons To Not Reverse The Award Were Unpersuasive.
Acting Presiding Justice Segal, author on behalf of the 2/7 DCA in Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., Case No. B318867 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 19, 2024), confronted a very spirited opposition by plaintiffs/class winning substantial fees for why the reviewing court should not deviate from the general rule that “reversal of the judgment usually also reverses a fee award.” Well, that general rule won out at the end, as it usually does.
What happened was that the lower court granted class plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication on some wage/hour claims, resulting in entry of a judgment. However, the appellate court reversed on the summary adjudication grant on causes of action for failure to provide meal/rest breaks. While that appeal was pending, the lower court awarded over $17 million in attorney’s fees and $700,000 in costs for fees incurred before the summary adjudication grant. The problem was that the appellate court was not necessarily buying into plaintiffs’ argument that the earlier appellate result was a narrowly limited reversal (likely more than plaintiffs thought) such that a “renew” look was warranted. Besides, even the defense agreed that some further statutory fees might be authorized by Naranjo, yet another reason to send it for a further review because possible fee work after the summary adjudication grant was in play for plaintiffs. A “replay” here.
Comments