Ayala v. Aldersgate Investment
Filed 3/21/13 Ayala v. Aldersgate Investment CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
RENE AYALA,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
ALDERSGATE INVESTMENT, LLC.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
2d Civil No.
B244513
(Super. Ct. No.
56-2011-00395400-CU-BC-VTA)
(Ventura
County)
Rene Ayala (respondent)
sued Aldersgate Investment LLC (appellant), for unpaid wages. The trial court granted
denying Ayala any recovery of wages or other damages. It denied, however, appellant's request for
an award of attorneys fees under Labor Code section 218.5.
of the judgment.
Facts
Respondent has not filed
a brief in this matter. We decide the
appeal based on the record and the opening
brief and will reverse only where prejudicial error is shown. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.220(a); Nakamura v.
Parker (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 327, 334 .)
Respondent's complaint
alleged that he was employed by appellant "and has not been paid for 12
days (96 hours) work, at $275 per day.
The total wages owed, before calculation of interest, statutory
penalties and attorney's fees amounts to $3,330.00. (See
§ 1194)." In addition to
recovery of the unpaid wages and interest, respondent sought an award of
"reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code sections 1194 and 218.5[.]"
The trial court granted
appellant's motion for summary judgment.
Although it awarded appellant its costs of suit, the trial court denied
any award of reasonable attorney fees under section 218.5. It later declined to reconsider the denial
of attorney's fees.
Discussion
Section 218.5 provides,
"In any action brought for nonpayment of
wages
. . . , the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and
costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney's
fees and costs upon the initiation of the action . . . . [¶] This section does not apply to
any action for which attorney's fees are recoverable under [Labor Code] Section
1194." Section 1194 subdivision (a)
provides that "any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or
the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to
recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum
wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs of suit."
As our Supreme Court
recently explained, "[S]ection 1194 is a one-way fee-shifting statute,
authorizing an award of attorney's fees only to employees who prevail on their
minimum wage or overtime claims. Section
218.5 is a two-way fee-shifting statute, permitting an award of fees to either
employees or employers who, as relevant here, prevail on an 'action brought for
the nonpayment of wages.' Prevailing
employers cannot obtain attorney's fees under section 218.5, however, if the
employees could have obtained such fees under section 1194 had they prevailed. (Earley
v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1429 (
v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244, 1251; see also
Aleman v. Air Touch Cellular (2012)
209 Cal.App.4th 556, 580.)
The plain language of
section 218.5 requires an award of reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing
party in an action for nonpayment of wages, where an award of fees is requested
"upon the initiation of the action."
(§ 218.5.) This rule does
not apply where the action is one to recover the minimum wage under section
1194. Here, respondent sued for alleged
nonpayment of wages, but not for an alleged failure to pay the minimum
wage. His complaint alleged that appellant
failed to pay him for 12 days' work at $275 per day, or $34.37 per hour. This action was not one to recover a minimum
wage under section 1194. Respondent also
requested, in his complaint, an award of attorney's fees. As a matter of law, then, the prevailing
party in this action was entitled to an award of attorneys fees under section
218.5. Because judgment was entered in
its favor, appellant was the prevailing party and, as such, was entitled to an
award of attorney's fees. No exception
to section 218.5 is disclosed by the record.
The trial court erred as a matter of law when it denied appellant's
request for an attorney's fee award.
Disposition
That portion of the
judgment denying an award of reasonable attorney's fees to appellant pursuant
to Labor Code section 218.5 is reversed.
In all respects, the judgment is affirmed. Appellant shall recover its
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN,
J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
Frederick
Bysshe, Judge
Superior
Court County
of Ventura
______________________________
Nelson, Comis, Kahn
& Sepulveda; Anson M. Whitfield, for Appellant.
No appearance for
Respondent.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All statutory references are to the Labor
Code unless otherwise stated.
