Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.
53 Cal. 4th 1244
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Kirby and Leech sued Immoos Fire Protection (IFP) and Doe defendants for multiple labor-law and UCL claims; sixth claim alleged failure to provide rest breaks under §226.7; seventh claim involved allegedly deficient contracts with builder defendants (2810) later named, settled with builders and dismissed later.
- IFP moved for attorney’s fees under §218.5; trial court awarded fees for the first, sixth, and seventh claims; Court of Appeal affirmed the fee on the rest-period claim but reversed on the 2810 and UCL claims.
- Plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice in 2009; this Court granted review to decide whether a party prevailing on §226.7 may recover attorney’s fees under §1194 or §218.5.
- The statute §1194 provides one-way fee-shifting for unpaid minimum wages or overtime; §218.5 provides two-way fee-shifting for nonpayment actions but excludes §1194-covered actions.
- The Supreme Court held that §1194 does not authorize fees for §226.7 claims and §218.5 does not authorize fees for the §226.7 claim; the §226.7 remedy is for nonprovision of breaks, not nonpayment of wages, and thus the default American rule governs with no §218.5 fee shift on §226.7 claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1194 authorizes attorney’s fees for §226.7 claims | Kirby argues §1194’s scope includes §226.7 | IFP argues §226.7 is not wage-based | No; §1194 does not cover §226.7 claims |
| Whether §218.5 authorizes attorney’s fees for the §226.7 claim | Kirby seeks fees under §218.5 as prevailing party | IFP argues §218.5 applies only to nonpayment actions and §226.7 is not nonpayment of wages | No; §218.5 does not apply to §226.7 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (Cal. 1998) (fee-shifting limitations; standard for fee awards)
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 40 Cal.4th 107 (Cal. 2007) (rest-break framework; limitations on fee-shifting interpretations)
- Earley v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.App.4th 1420 (Cal. App. 2000) (earlier holding on §218.5 applicability to wage claims)
- In re Michael G., 44 Cal.3d 283 (Cal. 1988) (statutory interpretation and aid to construction)
- Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc., 102 Cal.App.4th 765 (Cal. App. 2002) (context on wage-related statutory interpretation)
- Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Whitsett, 215 Cal. 400 (Cal. 1932) (historic view on wage-related statutes)