Prevailing Defendant Entitled to Fee Award Unrelated To Claims Seeking Unpaid Wages

Posted on September 1, 2010 by David J. McMahon

In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection Inc., 2010 DJDAR 11569 (2010) the Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal decided an appeal challenging an award of attorneys fees to an employer who successfully defended against allegations of labor violations by two employees.

Anthony Kirby and Rich Leech (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Immoos Fire Protection Inc. The complaint alleged six causes of action for violations of various labor laws as well as unfair competition (Business & Professions Code §17200).

The trial court rejected the Plaintiffs’ motion for class action certification. The Plaintiffs then dismissed with prejudice their complaint as to all causes of action. The trial court awarded the Defendant attorney fees of $49,846.05 for its defense of three of the six causes of action, including Labor Code violations and the §17200 claims. The Plaintiffs appealed the decision awarding the Defendant attorneys fees.

The Court of Appeal noted that Labor Code § 218.5 provides for fee shifting in favor of the party that prevails on a claim for unpaid wages. The court noted, however, that § 218.5 does not allow employers to recover fees in any action for minimum or overtime wages.

The Plaintiffs’ complaint included causes of action involving failure to pay minimum wages as well as other, non‑wage claims. The court rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that a prevailing Defendant may not recover fees in a case that includes a claim for unpaid minimum or overtime wages. The court noted that attorney fees may still be awarded for unrelated claims subject to the fee‑shifting provisions of § 218.5.  

The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court’s award of attorney fees for Immoos non‑wage related defense was proper. However, attorney fees awarded on two other causes of action was overruled as the award was miscalculated.

Award of Attorney Fees Under the Automobile Sale Finance Act Upheld by Court of Appeal

Posted on July 20, 2010 by David J. McMahon

by David J. McMahon and Tino X. Do

In Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., D054369 (July 15, 2010), the Fourth Appellate District upheld the trial court’s judgment awarding attorney fees to plaintiff class representative under the Automobile Sale Finance Act (“ASFA”), and denied costs to defendant in its claim under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998.

Nelson involved a class action against the Pearson Ford car dealership for alleged violations of the ASFA, Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) arising from a backdated car sale contract that resulted in a car buyer paying interest for a time period when no contract existed, and for erroneously adding insurance premium to the sales price of the car which resulted in additional sales tax and financing charges. 

Two separate classes were certified by the trial court: the backdating class and the insurance class. 

Following a bench trial, the trial court found Pearson Ford liable under the ASFA to only the insurance class, liable to both classes under the UCL, and not liable to either class under the CLRA. The trial court granted certain remedies under the ASFA and the UCL, and awarded Nelson his attorney fees and costs under the ASFA. Both parties appealed. 

The appellate court reversed the trial court as to the portion of the judgment finding Pearson Ford not liable to the backdating class under the ASFA and the CLRA. The court also found that the trial court erred in the remedies it awarded under the ASFA and the UCL. The court upheld the trial court’s ruling on the award of attorney fees and costs.

Attorney fees in this matter were not awarded under the UCL, which does not permit this type of remedy, but under the AFSA, a statute that specifically grants the recovery of attorney fees to the prevailing party. 

The appellate court noted that Pearson Ford did not challenge the trial court’s conclusion that Nelson was the prevailing party for both classes under the ASFA (Civ. Code section 2983.4), or dispute the awarded amount. Instead, Pearson Ford argued that the trial court should have taken into consideration the fact that it had made a Section 998 offer of $500,000 before trial, and that Nelson failed to obtain a more favorable judgment at trial. 

The appellate court, while noting that a valid settlement offer can be made under Section 998 in a certified class action, agreed with the trial court that the Section 998 offer at issue was invalid because it was a lump-sum offer to two classes. The court stated that it would be impossible to determine whether either class received a less favorable result at trial than it would have received under the offer.