United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases 9/26/11 CA2/8

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2011 » United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases 9/26/11 CA2/8

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B227556

Case Date: 12/21/2011

Preview:Filed 9/26/11 United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases v. United Parcel Service CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE WAGE AND HOUR CASES JOSE SALCIDO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

B227556 JCCP No. 4606

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Carl J. West, Judge. Reversed. Furutani & Peters and John A. Furutani for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, George W. Abele and Jessica Pae Boskovich for Defendant and Respondent.

**********

Plaintiffs and appellants Jose Salcido, Reginald Quinteros and David Taylor sued their employer, defendant and respondent United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), seeking recovery of unpaid overtime compensation and related claims. The trial court granted summary judgment against each of the plaintiffs, and we affirmed those judgments. UPS moved for an award of attorneys fees and costs. The trial court awarded attorneys fees to UPS against each plaintiff pursuant to Labor Code section 218.5.1 Plaintiffs here appeal the award of attorneys fees. Plaintiffs and UPS agree that this joint appeal present the same issue we previously decided in United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases (McGann) (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1425, review granted May 11, 2011, S191908. We remain of the view that UPS is not entitled to recover attorneys fees under section 218.5 for the successful defense of plaintiffs claims for alleged failure to pay meal and rest break premiums under section 226.7, and therefore reverse the awards of attorneys fees. Our review of an award of attorneys fees is ordinarily performed under the abuse of discretion standard. However, de novo review is warranted where, as here, determination of the propriety of such an award is dependent on statutory interpretation. (Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 132, 142; accord, Earley v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1426 (Earley).) We therefore exercise our independent review. Plaintiffs contend the fee awards were erroneous because section 218.5 does not apply to missed meal and rest break claims asserted under section 226.7. They also argue those claims were inextricably linked to their claims for unpaid overtime compensation, and section 1194 precludes an award of attorneys fees to the prevailing employerdefendant in an action for unpaid overtime. We need not address plaintiffs claim that UPS may not recover attorneys fees for successfully defending the section 226.7 claims on the ground those claims were inextricably linked to their overtime claims, because we find UPS is not entitled to recover fees under section 218.5 for the successful defense of section 226.7 claims seeking remedies for missed meal and rest breaks.
1

All further section references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise indicated. 2

Section 218.5 contains a reciprocal fee recovery provision in favor of the "prevailing party" in certain wage disputes. Section 218.5 states: "In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, the court shall award reasonable attorneys fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorneys fees and costs upon the initiation of the action. . . . [

Download United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases 9/26/11 CA2/8.pdf