Legal Opinion

Dane-Elec Corp. v. Bodokh

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided May 24, 2019No. G055312; Consol. with G055784PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FYBEL, ACTING P. J.

*764INTRODUCTION

Labor Code section 218.5, an attorney fee-shifting statute in actions for nonpayment of wages, prohibits a prevailing party employer from recovering attorney fees unless the trial court finds the employee brought the wage claim in bad faith. This appeal presents an issue regarding the effect of Labor Code section 218.5 on a prevailing party employer's right to recover contract-based attorney fees from an employee. Specifically, we address whether an employer may recover attorney fees incurred in successfully defending a wage claim, found not to have been brought…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Reynolds Metals Co. v. AlpersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Howard v. Owens CorningCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  3. Hutnick v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
  5. Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Elizabeth Rossetti v. Bare, Ltd. and Jamie SpanoSupreme Court of Vermont · 2026
  2. Evergreen Family Health Partners, LLP v. Bank of Burlington, Inc.District Court, D. Vermont · 2026
  3. Martinez v. Sai Long Beach B, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2025
  4. Rossetti v. BareVermont Superior Court · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API