Quiles v. Parent
G054353A
Cal. Ct. App.Nov 2, 2018Background
- Amanda Quiles sued Koji’s and Arthur Parent as part of a wage-and-hour class action and later added an individual FLSA wrongful-termination (retaliation) claim against them.
- A bench trial earlier found Parent was a joint employer; later a jury found Parent liable on Quiles’s individual FLSA retaliation claim, awarding damages (economic, non-economic, punitive) and liquidated damages under § 216(b).
- Quiles withdrew as class representative and dismissed other individual claims, leaving only her successful FLSA retaliation claim against Parent.
- Quiles sought $1,057,295.59 in attorney fees and about $70,588 in costs; the trial court awarded $689,310.04 in fees and $50,591.69 in costs; Parent appealed only the fees/costs awards.
- Primary disputes on appeal: (1) whether federal or state law governs what types of costs are recoverable in an FLSA case filed in state court; (2) whether specific costs (copying, postage, mediation, expert fees, certified mail) and jointly-incurred fees/costs were recoverable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable law for types of costs in state-court FLSA action | Quiles: federal law governs what costs are recoverable under § 216(b) | Parent: state procedural law governs what costs are recoverable | Federal law applies because uniformity and the remedial nature of the FLSA require it |
| Recoverability of copying, postage, mediation costs | Quiles: such out-of-pocket litigation expenses are recoverable under federal FLSA precedent | Parent: state law (Cal. CCP §1033.5) excludes these costs; mediation split agreement bars recovery | Award affirmed; federal cases permit copying, postage, mediation costs; mediation award allowed because Parent failed to participate in mediation he had helped schedule |
| Award of expert witness fees | Quiles: implicitly allowed; trial court awarded expert fees | Parent: expert fees are not authorized under FLSA costs (raised on appeal) | Parent forfeited the specific statutory-authority challenge by failing to properly raise and brief it below |
| Jointly-incurred fees/costs while other plaintiffs remain in litigation | Quiles: court should award reasonable fees/costs attributable to her success, even if some were jointly incurred | Parent: Fennessy requires denial of jointly incurred costs while co-plaintiffs remain pending; costs must be apportioned or disallowed | Trial court did not abuse discretion; it examined the record and awarded only fees/costs reasonably attributable to Quiles’s successful claim (apportionment approach required, not blanket denial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (fee-award standards: exclude hours not reasonably expended; district court discretion to adjust for degree of success)
- Kinsey v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 178 Cal.App.4th 201 (2009) (federal law controls availability of certain costs, like expert fees, in state-filed FELA actions)
- Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 147 Cal.App.4th 451 (2007) (availability of expert witness fees in FELA actions in state court is substantive and governed by federal law)
- Lund v. San Joaquin Valley Railroad, 31 Cal.4th 1 (2003) (prejudgment interest in FELA cases is a substantive issue governed by federal law to preserve national uniformity)
- Smith v. Diffee Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 298 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2002) (§ 216(b) authorizes broad measure of reasonable out-of-pocket litigation expenses beyond taxable costs)