Attorneys' Fees and Costs

Amid a bevy of legislation crossing the Governor’s desk directly relating to the ongoing public health crisis, Governor Newsom approved AB 1947 with little public fanfare, but significant implications for employers.  The new legislation amends the Labor Code in two substantive ways:  (1) it lengthens the period of time in which employees can file complaints with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”); and (2) authorizes a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who prevails in a “whistleblower” action under Labor Code § 1102.5.  While not expressly considered “coronavirus” legislation, it is clear the coronavirus pandemic influenced the Legislature’s decision to further expand certain rights under California’s workplace antiretaliation laws.
Continue Reading AB 1947’S New Filing Period for DLSE Claims and Attorney’s Fees Provisions: Coronavirus Legislation in Sheep’s Clothing?

The end of the year is often a time of self-reflection to determine if one has ended up on the “Nice” or “Naughty” List. In appellate practice, ending up on the “Naughty List” can result in serious consequences, including the dismissal of a pending appeal and a forfeiture of substantive legal rights, regardless of the merits of the underlying appeal.
Continue Reading Ending Up On The Naughty List: Dismissal Of A Pending Appeal Under The Disentitlement Doctrine

In the aftermath of the Illinois Supreme Court’s Rosenbach decision, Illinois employers have faced a wave of class action litigation filed under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Employers hoping for relief from the statute’s private right of action must wait for another day (or another session) as Senate Bill 2134 (“SB 2134”) did not report out of committee by the March 28, 2019 deadline.
Continue Reading The Potential For Stemming BIPA Suits Waits Another Day

Under section 1032(b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, “a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding” unless some statute expressly says otherwise.  It has been California’s rule for over a decade that this provision allowed victorious defendants in cases under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) to recover their costs of suit as a matter of right.  However, on May 4, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District, holding that the default rule of section 1032(b) is preempted by Government Code section 12965(b), a subsection of the FEHA that places the decision to award costs within the discretion of the trial court.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Makes It Harder For Prevailing FEHA Defendants To Recover Their Costs