Plaintiff seeks $47,540 in attorney's fee under Labor Code Section 226(e)(1) after having been awarded at trial $500 on her claim that Defendant failed to provide her with an adequate wage statement.  Plaintiff lost on her other claims for which attorney's fees would have been available had she prevailed.  Neither side cited any precedent addressing the reasonableness of an attorney's fee request arising from success on a claim for which attorney's fees are available that vastly exceeds the amount awarded on that claim.   In advance of the hearing on Plaintiff's motion, the Court directs counsel for the parties to Stratton v. Beck (2017) 9 Cal.App.5^th 483, 497, and Harrington v. Payroll Entertainment Services, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4^th 589, 593-594.  The latter involves Section 226(e)(1).  While the facts of Stratton and Beck differ from the facts here, the two cases are pertinent because they address the asserted disproportionality between an attorney's fees request on a successful claim and the amount actually awarded on the claim.  There presumably are other cases addressing this question under Section 226(e)(1) and other fee shifting statutes.  The Court will review any such precedent that the parties identify at the hearing.  For now, the Court's tentative ruling is that $47,540 is not a reasonable attorney's fees given that it is so disproportionate to the amount that Plaintiff was awarded on her Section 226(e)(1) claim.