Quiles v. Parent
239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 664
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Quiles sued Koji’s and Parent in a wage-and-hour class action and later added an individual FLSA wrongful-termination (retaliation) claim; after trials, a jury found Parent liable for retaliatory termination and awarded damages.
- The trial court earlier found Parent was a joint employer at a bench trial; Parent later declared bankruptcy and was sanctioned for a frivolous filing.
- After the jury verdict and post-trial proceedings, Quiles sought attorney fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); the trial court awarded $689,310.04 in fees and $50,591.69 in costs, and entered an amended judgment.
- Parent appealed only the attorney-fee and costs awards, arguing (inter alia) that: (1) state law—not federal law—governs which costs are recoverable; (2) certain awarded costs (copying, postage, mediation, expert fees, certified mail) are not authorized; and (3) Quiles recovered jointly incurred fees/costs benefiting other plaintiffs whose claims remain pending.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding federal law governs which costs are recoverable in state-court FLSA actions, that copying/postage/mediation costs were recoverable, that Parent forfeited his challenge to expert fees, and that the trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees/costs related to proving Parent was a joint employer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Quiles) | Defendant's Argument (Parent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal law or state law governs what types of costs are recoverable in an FLSA action filed in state court | Federal law applies; federal courts allow a broad measure of costs under § 216(b) | State procedural law governs recoverable cost types | Federal law controls the question of which costs are recoverable in state-court FLSA cases (federal law applied) |
| Whether copying, postage, and mediation fees are recoverable | These are reasonable litigation expenses recoverable under § 216(b) as "reasonable out-of-pocket" costs | Not recoverable under state Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5; mediation fees especially improper because of a contractual split agreement | Recoverable under federal FLSA law; mediation fees also allowed because Parent failed to participate in mediation |
| Whether expert witness fees awarded were unauthorized by the FLSA | Fees are part of reasonable costs under § 216(b) | Expert fees are not statutorily authorized under FLSA; trial court erred in awarding them | Parent forfeited the argument by not raising the statutory-authority objection below; issue not preserved for appeal |
| Whether Quiles may recover attorney fees/costs jointly incurred with other plaintiffs while those other actions remain pending; and whether fees for proving joint-employer status and certified-mail costs were unrelated | Trial court should allocate and award only those fees/costs reasonably necessary to Quiles’ successful claim; proving joint-employer status was integral to holding Parent liable | Jointly incurred costs cannot be awarded while co-plaintiffs’ claims remain pending; fees for joint-employer bench trial and some items (certified mail) were unrelated | Trial court did not abuse discretion: it examined the record, apportioned fees/costs reasonably, and properly awarded fees/costs tied to proving Parent was a joint employer and to Quiles’ successful claim; certified-mail and similar costs were reasonable and justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (federal procedural rights may preempt state procedures)
- Kinsey v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 178 Cal.App.4th 201 (Cal. Ct. App.) (federal law controls availability of certain costs in state-filed FELA cases)
- Miller v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 147 Cal.App.4th 451 (Cal. Ct. App.) (availability of expert fees in FELA actions governed by federal law)
- Lund v. San Joaquin Valley R.R., 31 Cal.4th 1 (Cal.) (federal law governs prejudgment interest in state-filed FELA actions to preserve uniformity)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (standard for calculating reasonable attorney fees and considering degree of success)
- Smith v. Diffee Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 298 F.3d 955 (10th Cir.) (§ 216(b) authorizes broad measure of costs including out-of-pocket litigation expenses)
- Charton v. Harkey, 247 Cal.App.4th 730 (Cal. Ct. App.) (when parties are jointly represented, trial court must apportion costs by necessity and reasonableness)