Dane-Elec Corp. v. Bodokh

May 24, 2019 by Justia

This appeal presented 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. In this case, Dane-Elec Corporation USA (Dane Corp.) prevailed against Nessim Bodokh, its former chief executive officer, on a complaint to recover on a promissory note and defeated Bodokh’s cross-complaint to recover allegedly unpaid wages. The trial court granted Dane Corp.’s motion to recover attorney fees based on an attorney fees provision in the promissory note. The court found that Bodokh had not brought the wage claim in bad faith and declined to award Dane Corp. attorney fees incurred solely in connection with the wage claim. But the court awarded Dane Corp. attorney fees incurred in defending Bodokh’s wage claim that were inextricably intertwined with the contract claim. Bodokh appealed from the judgment and the order granting Dane Corp.’s motion for attorney fees. The Court of Appeal reversed the order granting Dane Corp.’s motion for attorney fees and remanded. Based on its holding, the Court concluded that under section 218.5(a) Dane Corp. could not recover attorney fees to the extent the wage claim and the breach of contract claim were inextricably intertwined. The matter was remanded for the trial court to recalculate the amount of attorney fees to be awarded to Dane Corp. View "Dane-Elec Corp. v. Bodokh" on Justia Law