Kirby

Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.

Bad Law
140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 173·2012 Cal. LEXIS 3981·53 Cal. 4th 1244·2012 WL 1470313·274 P.3d 1160
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 30, 2012S185827California5,640 words

Opinion

Opinion

Liu, J.

In general, a prevailing party may recover attorney’s fees only when a statute or an agreement of the parties provides for fee shifting. (Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 830 , 951 P.2d 399 ].) Labor Code section 218.5 requires the awarding of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party “[i]n any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions.” This provision awards fees to the prevailing party whether it is the employee or the employer; it is a two-way fee-shifting provision. However, Labor Code section 218.5 “does not apply to any action for which attorney’s fees are recoverable under [Labor Code] Section 1194.” (Lab. Code, § 218.5.) Labor Code section 1194 provides that employees who prevail in an action for any unpaid “legal minimum wage or . . . legal overtime compensation” are entitled to recover attorney’s fees. It is a one-way fee-shifting provision. (All subsequent unlabeled statutory references are to the Labor Code.)

In this case, plaintiffs Anthony Kirby and Rick Leech, Jr., sued defendant Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (DPP), and multiple Doe defendants for violating…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.