Arias v. Kardoulias
207 Cal. App. 4th 1429
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Arias filed a wage claim with the California Labor Commissioner seeking unpaid wages; the commissioner awarded $6,319.69.
- Arias’s appeal to the superior court was untimely and dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
- Kardoulias (Arias’s employer) sought attorney fees under Lab. Code § 98.2, subd. (c) for the appeal.
- The superior court awarded $6,395 in attorney fees and costs to Kardoulias, treating Arias as unsuccessful on appeal.
- This is the first case addressing whether a jurisdictional-dismissal is equivalent to an award of zero under § 98.2, subd. (c).
- Arias I held the untimeliness precluded appellate review; the court later reversed on the fee issue, finding dismissal did not trigger § 98.2, subd. (c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a jurisdictional dismissal of an untimely appeal triggers § 98.2(c) fees. | Arias argues dismissal on jurisdictional grounds does not allow § 98.2(c) recovery. | Kardoulias argues dismissal equates to unsuccessful appeal, justifying fees. | No; § 98.2(c) does not operate without a merits trial on the wage claim. |
| Whether § 98.2(c) operates when the superior court lacks original jurisdiction to conduct a trial. | Arias contends fees are not triggered by a jurisdictional dismissal. | Kardoulias contends dismissal forecloses merits and justifies fees. | § 98.2(c) is not triggered by a jurisdictional dismissal; fees require a merits trial. |
| Whether the employee is considered successful on appeal only if the court awards > zero. | Arias claims any wage award sustains success; here none occurred. | Kardoulias relies on prior interpretation treating zero awards as failure. | The statute requires a post-trial award to be considered successful; dismissal cannot be treated as zero award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Post v. Palo/Haklar & Associates, 23 Cal.4th 942 (Cal. 2000) (describes de novo appeal and its effect on jurisdiction and proceedings)
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007) (two options for wage claims; de novo trial concept)
- Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group, 29 Cal.4th 345 (Cal. 2002) (employee success on appeal defined; later amended by statute)
- Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 51 Cal.4th 659 (Cal. 2011) (amendment to § 98.2(c) regarding employee success on appeal)
- Lolley v. Campbell, 28 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2002) (purpose of § 98.2 to discourage meritless appeals)
- Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., 50 Cal.4th 1389 (Cal. 2010) (statutory interpretation method; afresh look at Legislature’s intent)
- Cardenas v. Mission Industries, 226 Cal.App.3d 952 (Cal. App. 1991) (describes de novo trial as complete trial replacing prior finding)
- Winick Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co., 187 Cal.App.3d 1502 (Cal. App. 1986) (attorney fees pragmatically awarded for procedural dismissals)