Letizia v. Wentworth, Paoli & Purdy CA4/3

Filed 8/17/15 Letizia v. Wentworth, Paoli & Purdy CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CLARICE J. LETIZIA,

Cross-Complainant and G050132 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00584165) v. OPINION WENTWORTH, PAOLI, & PURDY, LLP,

Cross-Defendant, and Respondent. .

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, John C. Gastelum, Judge. Affirmed. Miller Johnson Law, Jon B. Miller, and Scott A. Johnson for Cross- complainant and Appellant. Paoli & Purdy and William M. Delli Paoli for Cross-defendant and Respondent. * * *

Clarice J. Letizia appeals from the court’s postjudgment order denying her motion to be reimbursed by Wentworth, Paoli, & Purdy, LLP (WPP) for attorney fees 1 under Labor Code section 2802. Under section 2802, subdivision (a), an “employer” must indemnify an “employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in . . . the discharge of [the employee’s] duties, or of [the employee’s] obedience to the directions of the employer.” Under section 2802, subdivision (c), the term “necessary expenditures or losses” includes “attorney’s fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.” Letizia contends the jury found she incurred “travel expenses while employed by” WPP, and therefore she is entitled to attorney fees under section 2802, subdivision (c). We disagree and therefore affirm the court’s order.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

An appellant must include all “significant facts” in his or her brief, as opposed to only favorable evidence. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).) Letizia’s opening brief takes most of her recited “facts” from her own verified cross-complaint, and the few other facts she recites are equally favorable to her cause. We recount the relevant procedural background based on the record before us.