Labor/Employment
May 9, 2012
Kirby clarifies post-Brinker attorney fees
The decision in Kirby is being touted as an employer victory because of its potential chilling effect on contigency fee arrangements. By Veronica M. Gray and John T. Kennedy of Nossaman LLP
Veronica M. Gray
Nossaman LLP
18101 Von Karman Ave #1800
Irvine , CA 92612
Phone: 949-477-7663
Email: vgray@nossaman.com
On the heels of Brinker, on April 30, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection Inc. (2012) Case No. S185827, holding that prevailing parties in rest or meal break actions may not recover attorney fees under California Labor Code Sections 218.5 and 1194. In reversing the Court of Appeal's decision, the Court analyzed the interplay of California Labor Code ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In