Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2020-00031706-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 30, 2023

12/01/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00031706-CU-OE-CTL CASTANON VS S STEVEN PODSTRELENY DDS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Attorney Fees, 06/12/2023

Defendant S. Steven Podstreleny DDS, A Professional Corporation's Motion for Attorney's Fees is DENIED.

'In general, a prevailing party may recover attorney's fees only when a statute or an agreement of the parties provides for fee shifting.' (Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244.) Here, the parties disagree on the applicable fee statute.

Labor Code section 218.5(a) states that 'In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney's fees and costs upon the initiation of the action. If the prevailing party in the court action is not an employee, attorney's fees and costs shall be awarded pursuant to this section only if the court finds that the employee brought the court action in bad faith.' Labor Code section 1194 states that 'Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of suit.' In effect, Section 218.5 is 'two way' fee shifting statute while Section 1194 is a 'one way' fees statute that only allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover fees. (E.g., Earley v. Super. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1428.) Thus, the court must determine whether Section 218.5, Section 1194, or some other section apply to the causes of action in this case.

Section 218.5 is relatively limited and to the extent it covers the 'nonpayment' of wages, it refers to causes of action brought under Section 201 and 202. (See Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244, 1255-1256.) Section 1194 controls as to the availability of attorney fees with respect to claims concerning failure to pay minimum wages or overtime. Other Labor Code causes of action, such as meal and rest period claims arising under Labor Code section 226.7, are not covered by either fee shifting provision and are therefore 'governed by the default American rule that each side must cover its own attorney's fees.' (Id. at 1259.) Here, Plaintiff alleged the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to reimburse expenditures; (5) failure Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2983213  15 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CASTANON VS S STEVEN PODSTRELENY DDS  37-2020-00031706-CU-OE-CTL to provide accurate wage statements; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) UCL violations; and (8) failure to provide personnel file. Only the sixth cause of action, arising under Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203, would fall under Section 218.5. The other causes of action are either governed by Section 1194 or have no controlling fee shifting statute. Defendant argues that this is squarely a 'misclassification' case but that does not convert it wholesale into one where fees are statutorily recoverable.

Although the court could apportion the requested fees for recovery under Section 218.5 for the sixth cause of action, it must also find that the lawsuit was brought in bad faith to justify those fees. The court will hear from the parties whether those fees should be granted.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2983213  15