This case originally involved a minor dispute for unpaid overtime for an off-duty police officer working on a movie set in Los Angeles.
Based on a formula used by the movie's payroll company, the suit claimed the officer was slightly shortchanged to the tune of about 50 bucks ($44.63 to be exact).
But more importantly (for the lawyers anyway), the suit also sought to have the case certified for class action status on behalf of other colleagues of the plaintiff who were also allegedly underpaid for their movie work.
The class action status request was denied and the case on behalf of the single officer was ultimately settled for $10,500.
This appeal arose when the attorneys for the officer requested that the trial court award more than 4 times the verdict (about $46,000) for attorneys' fees.
The trial court denied the attorneys' motion, noting in a footnote that "[t]he 'public benefit' of this settlement is minimal or nonexistent" and awarded NO fees.
Surprise... The attorneys appealed.
The appellate court, in a published opinion, issued a "good news / bad news" ruling for the lawyers:
It reversed the award of no fees, ruling that the attorneys are absolutely entitled to an award for fees under the Labor Code.
Then it awarded fees of $500.
Ouch.
"It is undisputed that fees are recoverable in this action under section 1194, subdivision (a) (an employee paid less than his legal overtime compensation 'is entitled to recover' his 'reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of suit'), section 2699, subdivision (g) (an employee whose action results in the payment of civil penalties 'shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs'), and section 226, subdivision (e) (an employee 'suffering injury' as the result of an employer's failure to provide a pay stub 'is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees'). Because section 2699, subdivision (g), provides that Harrington "shall be entitled" to an award of fees, an award is a matter of right."
The Court then went on to analyze the actual fee request and ruled that they were unreasonably high ("padded" is a word that comes to mind), resulting in the nominal fee award.
[Contrast this against an FEHA case we reported on two weeks ago in which the appellate court ruled that attorneys fees equaling about 80 times the actual money award was justified ($871,000 in fees for an $11,500 award -- to read about that case, CLICK HERE).]
The instant case is Harrington v. Payroll Entertainment Services.
To read the published opinion,
PLEASE CLICK HERE.
- Help for the Injured Worker
