Plaintiff’s Attorneys Denied Additional Interest On Attorneys’ Fees
Vines v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, 2024 WL 1751760 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)
Renee Vines filed an action against his former employer alleging discrimination and harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) based on his race and age; that he was retaliated against when he was wrongfully terminated after he complained about the discrimination and harassment; and that his employer failed to prevent
Attorneys Who “Severely Over-Litigated” Wage Claims Were Still Entitled to Reasonable Fees
Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc., 100 Cal. App. 5th 1094 (2024)
Elinton Gramajo worked as a pizza delivery driver for less than a year and sued his former employer for various Labor Code violations, including minimum and overtime wage claims. After nearly four years of litigation and extensive discovery, a jury awarded Gramajo only $7,659.93 though his attorneys sought approximately $324,000 in prevailing
March 2024 California Employment Law Notes
Prevailing Employer May Only Recover Costs If FEHA Action Was “Objectively Frivolous”
Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel Cal. By the Sea, LLC, 99 Cal. App. 5th 551 (2024)
Amanda Neeble-Diamond sued her employer for violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), but after a jury concluded she was an independent contractor rather than an employee, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the employer (Hotel California). Hotel California then filed a motion for attorney’s fees
Terminating Sanctions Entered Against Employee Who Deleted Relevant Text Messages
Jones v. Riot Hospitality Group LLC, 2024 WL 927669 (9th Cir. 2024)
Alyssa Jones, a former waitress at a Scottsdale, Arizona bar, sued the owner of the bar and his company (Riot) for violations of Title VII and common law tort claims. After two of Jones’ coworkers testified in their depositions that they had exchanged text messages with Jones about the case, the district court
California Places Third on Annual “Judicial Hellholes” List!
For the second year in a row, California has avoided being “the worst in the nation,” but still managed to secure the unenviable third position on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s (“ATRF”) Annual Judicial Hellholes List.
The ATRF characterizes California as the “plaintiffs’ bar’s laboratory for finding new ways to expand liability,” highlighting several key judicial and legislative trends contributing to each Californian paying an
November 2023 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted November 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- Company That Hired Competitor’s Employee Was Not Entitled To Arbitrate Claims
- Disability Discrimination Claim Was Properly Dismissed On Summary Judgment
- Employee’s Attorney’s “Pervasive Incivility” Justified $460,000 Reduction In Fees
- Employees Were Properly Awarded $7.2 Million
Lawyer-Investigators Recover Attorneys’ Fees Following Successful Anti-SLAPP Motion
Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 96 Cal. App. 5th 722 (2023)
Plaintiff Natalie Operstein was a professor of linguistics at California State University, Fullerton, and plaintiff Craig Ross is her husband. In 2014, the university hired a law firm to investigate multiple accusations Operstein raised to her superiors about three of Operstein’s colleagues. Defendant Colleen Regan, then a partner at the law firm, led
Employee’s Attorney’s “Pervasive Incivility” Justified $460,000 Reduction In Fees
Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations, Inc., 2023 WL 7014096 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Steve Snoeck prevailed at trial on one of his six claims against his former employer, ExakTime Innovations, and was awarded $1.14 million in attorney’s fees – an amount that the trial court reduced by a “0.4 negative multiplier” to account for Snoeck’s attorney’s “lack of civility throughout the entire course of this