News & Analysis as of

Attorney's Fees › Corporate Counsel › CA Supreme Court

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Supreme Court Confirms the “Knowing and Intentional” Standard of California’s Wage Statement Law Requires a “Knowing...

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, the case’s second appearance before the California Supreme Court in two years, the Supreme Court confirmed that an employer does not incur civil penalties for failing to report unpaid...more

FordHarrison

California Court Approves $700,000 Settlement for Seating Claim Brought By Retail Employees

FordHarrison on

The effects of the California Supreme Court’s latest interpretation to provide seating to workers are beginning to show, as the United States District Court for the Central District of California recently approved a $700,000...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Supreme Court Approves Attorney Fee Awards Calculated Based Upon Percentage of Class Action Common Fund

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

In Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc., No. S222996 (Aug. 11, 2016), the California Supreme Court held, in an employment class action lawsuit, that when attorney fees are awarded to class counsel from a common fund,...more

Cozen O'Connor

Bad Faith Attorneys’ Fees Are Compensatory Damages in Determining Cap On Punitive Damages

Cozen O'Connor on

On June 9, 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled in Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., __ Cal.4th ___ (2016) that the attorneys’ fees awarded to a veteran who sued for benefits under a “hospital stay” policy should be...more

4 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide