Legal Opinion

Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.

California Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 2012No. S185827PublishedCited by 128 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LIU, J.

In general, a prevailing party may recover attorney’s fees only when a statute or an agreement of the parties provides for fee shifting. (Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606 [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 830, 951 P.2d 399].) Labor Code section 218.5 requires the awarding of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party “[i]n any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions.” This provision awards fees to the prevailing party whether it is the employee or the employer; it is a two-way fee-shifting provision. However, Labor…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. HuntCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by128 opinions

  1. Grant Fritsch v. Swift Transportation Co. of AzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
  2. Oto, L. L.C. v. KhoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  3. Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2015
  5. McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 2021

123 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API