Lolley v. Campbell

California Court of Appeal Jan 30, 2001 No. B136276Published

Before: Coffee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Labor Code section 98.2, subdivision (b), does not authorize an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing claimant represented by the Labor Commissioner because the claimant has not 'incurred' any fees for legal services.

Issues

Whether a claimant represented by the Labor Commissioner free of charge has 'incurred' attorney's fees under Labor Code section 98.2, subdivision (b).
Whether the trial court erred in denying a request for attorney's fees where the claimant was not obligated to pay for legal representation.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The terms of the statute are not ambiguous and plainly require the opposing party to incur fees.”

“Because appellant was not obligated to pay attorney's fees to the Labor Commissioner, the trial court did not err in striking appellant's memorandum of costs.”

“Our conclusion in this case that attorney's fees are not authorized by section 98.2, subdivision (b), rests on the plain language of the existing statute.”

101 Cal.Rptr.2d 146 (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 683 Chris LOLLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant,

Shawn CAMPBELL, Defendant and Respondent.

No. B136276. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six.

October 31, 2000. Review Granted January 30, 2001. [147] Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Department of Industrial Relations, William A. Reich, Staff Counsel, Ventura, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of James L. Spencer, Ventura, for Defendant and Respondent.

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Paul Grossman, Patricia M. Berry, Los Angeles, for California Employment Law Council as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

COFFEE, J.

Chris Lolley appeals from an order of the trial court denying his request for attorney's fees following a trial de novo of a wage dispute with his former employer. The trial court concluded that Labor Code section 98.2 did not authorize the award of fees because appellant was represented by the Labor Commissioner free of charge and had not incurred any fees.[1] We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellant filed a claim with the Labor Commissioner against his former employer, respondent Shawn Campbell, doing business as Tri-County Builders Supply, seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and waiting time penalties. (§ 203.) Following a hearing, the hearing officer awarded appellant $19,476.80 in wages and $7,067.33 in penalties, plus interest.

Respondent timely appealed to the superior court, seeking a trial de novo. (§ 98.2.) Appellant, who had previously represented himself, requested legal representation by the Labor Commissioner pursuant to section 98.4. The Labor Commissioner agreed to represent him through one of its attorneys. In conjunction with that agreement, appellant assigned to the Labor Commissioner all attorney's fees recoverable in the de novo proceedings.

Following the trial de novo, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of appellant awarding him most of the unpaid overtime wages he had sought ($14,413.71), plus interest and penalties. Thereafter, appellant filed a memorandum of costs and supporting declaration requesting an award of $6,600 in attorney's fees to be used to pay the Labor Commissioner for the legal services it had rendered.[2]

Lolley v. Campbell

AI Brief

COFFEE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief