Gantman v. Stephan, Schreiber & Tabachnick CPA's CA2/7

Filed 4/18/22 Gantman v. Stephan, Schreiber & Tabachnick CPA’s CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

ANDREW GANTMAN, B291932

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS168144) v.

STEPHAN, SCHREIBER & TABACHNICK CPA’S, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Andrew Gantman, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. DeSimone & Huxster and Gerald DeSimone for Defendant and Respondent. _________________

Labor Code section 98.2, subdivision (a),1 authorizes parties to a Labor Commission wage proceeding to file an appeal to the superior court where the matter is heard de novo. Section 98.2, subdivision (c), provides, if the party seeking review by filing the appeal is unsuccessful, the court is to award costs and reasonable attorney fees to the other parties to the appeal. Subdivision (c) specifies, “An employee is successful if the court awards an amount greater than zero.” Andrew Gantman filed a claim against his former employer, Stephan, Schreiber & Tabachnick CPA’s, Inc. (SST), with the Labor Commissioner for unpaid wages and violations of the Labor Code, including section 221, prohibiting an employer from collecting sums owed to it from an employee’s wages, and section 2802, requiring an employer to indemnify its employee for necessary expenditures. Unsuccessful before the Labor Commissioner, Gantman appealed to the superior court, where the trial court found SST did not owe him any money and had not violated any related provision of the Labor Code. We affirmed the judgment in favor of SST earlier this year. (Gantman v. Stephan, Schreiber & Tabachnick CPA’s, Inc. (Jan. 19, 2022, B290271) [nonpub. opn.] (Gantman I).) Gantman, representing himself, now appeals the trial court’s award of $34,505 in attorney fees to SST pursuant to section 98.2, subdivision (c), arguing, because the trial court erred in awarding him nothing, attorney fees are not properly awarded to SST. We affirm.