198 Cal. App. 4th 308
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plancich sued UPS for overtime, meal/rest breaks, wage statements, conversion, injunction, and unfair competition.
- Jury found UPS prevailed on non-overtime wage claims; trial court awarded costs to UPS but struck them on motion.
- UPS sought costs under CCP §1032(b); Plancich argued under Labor Code §218.5 and §1194, and Earley v. Superior Court as controlling.
- Trial court struck costs in full, citing public policy of §1194 and lack of apportionment, and potential chilling effect on wage claims.
- On appeal, court held UPS may recover costs under CCP §1032(b); Earley not controlling; apportionment not necessary if costs relate to statutory claims.
- Matter remanded with instruction that UPS recover its costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCP §1032(b) allows costs to the prevailing employer | Plancich relies on Earley to bar costs for overtime claims. | UPS argues §1032(b) governs costs for prevailing parties unless statute expressly bars it. | Yes; §1032(b) permits costs for prevailing parties where not expressly excluded. |
| Whether Labor Code §1194 contains an express exception to costs for employers | §1194 potentially implies no express right for employers to costs. | §1194 provides employee fees, not employer costs; no express exclusion for employers. | No express exclusion; §1194 does not bar costs to prevailing employers. |
| Whether Labor Code §218.5 controls costs in unpaid-wage actions | §218.5 would grant costs to prevailing party as a general rule. | Even if §218.5 applies, UPS was prevailing and requested costs at outset. | §218.5 would not defeat a prevailing-party costs award to UPS. |
| Whether Earley is persuasive on costs here | Earley supports limiting costs for overtime claims to employees. | Earley is not controlling on CCP §1032(b) costs and is distinguishable. | Not persuasive; plain language controls and Earley does not govern costs under §1032(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 985 (1998) (express language required to bar costs; silence not enough to exclude costs)
- Earley v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.App.4th 1420 (2000) (one-way fee shifting for overtime claims; absent class member implications)
- Compulink Management Center, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 169 Cal.App.4th 289 (2008) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs if unambiguous)