Sampson v. Parking Service 2000 Com, Inc.
Decision Date | 30 March 2004 |
Docket Number | No. B163735,B163735 |
Parties | George SAMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PARKING SERVICE 2000 COM, INC., Defendant and Respondent. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Lon B. Isaacson Associates, Lon B. Isaacson and Larry D. Johnson for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Scott Gailen, Inc., and Scott Gailen, Woodland Hills, for Defendant and Respondent.
Under the Labor Code, if an employer fails to pay overtime compensation, the employee may file a civil action (Lab.Code, § 1194)1 or may pursue an administrative remedy set forth in sections 98 et seq., by filing a complaint with the Labor Commissioner (hereafter commissioner).2 Section 1194 provides in pertinent part that an "employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of ... overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of suit." In this case, we must decide whether the term "civil action" as it appears in section 1194 means only actions filed in court, or whether it also includes administrative proceedings before the commissioner to recover overtime wages. We conclude that a civil action is one filed in court. We further conclude that because appellant George Sampson (Sampson) elected to pursue his administrative remedy, his right to recover attorney fees is not governed by section 1194, but by section 98.2, subdivision (c).3 The right to recover attorney fees in that code section is limited to those fees incurred on appeal from the commissioner's decision. On this basis, we affirm the trial court's order limiting Sampson's attorney fees to those incurred in the trial de novo following his employer's appeal of the commissioner's decision.
In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we reject Sampson's challenge to the amount of the attorney fees awarded.
Sampson filed a wage claim with the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (i.e., the commissioner) against his former employer Parking Service 2000.Com., Inc. (employer). Sampson had worked for more than 16 months as a manager for employer at employer's car wash and detail operation at Mountaingate Country Club. After Sampson was fired, he sought to recover, among other things, overtime compensation because employer had erroneously considered him to be an employee exempt from overtime. In addition to alleging failure to pay overtime compensation, Sampson's administrative complaint alleged that employer had failed to pay wages, vacation pay, and tips, totaling about $57,712. The complaint also sought "waiting time" penalties. (§ 203.)
Sampson retained counsel (hereafter attorneys) to represent him before the commissioner. In addition to preparing the administrative complaint, attorneys interviewed potential witnesses and subpoenaed business records from Mountaingate Country Club and employer. These records included individual receipts reflecting tips and provided a basis from which attorneys could estimate the number of hours Sampson worked during his employment. The attorneys also attended settlement conferences before participating in the two-day administrative hearing. Following the administrative hearing, the hearing officer decided in Sampson's favor and awarded him approximately $58,350.
Employer challenged the decision and timely sought a trial de novo in the superior court. (§ 98.2, subd. (a).) After a five-day court trial, the court entered a judgment awarding Sampson $29,277. The award included $11,812, in overtime compensation; $8,750, in unpaid tips; $500, in unpaid vacation; $2,965, in interest; and $5,250, in waiting time penalties.
Sampson filed a posttrial motion requesting $45,597.78 in statutory attorney fees and costs under section 1194. The request for fees included those Sampson incurred during the administrative proceeding and during the trial de novo in superior court. Employer opposed the motion, contending that Sampson was only entitled to statutory fees under section 98.2, subdivision (c), which limited the recovery of fees to those incurred during the trial de novo in superior court.
The trial court concluded that the administrative proceeding before the commissioner was not a "civil action" within the meaning of section 1194. Therefore, it limited Sampson's fees to those incurred during the trial de novo. Sampson incurred $15,235 in attorney fees following his employer's request for a trial de novo. The trial court awarded him $6,750. Sampson timely filed this appeal contesting the attorney fees order on the grounds that the trial court erred in its interpretation of section 1194 and abused its discretion in determining the amount of attorney fees awarded.4
Sampson contends that section 1194 applies to administrative proceedings before the commissioner. That argument necessarily depends upon the meaning of the term "civil action" as used in section 1194. Sampson principally asserts that because section 1194 does not define "civil action," we should import the definition of that term from section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That code section, according to Sampson, defines a civil action as an action "prosecuted by one party against another for the declaration, enforcement or protection of a right," which, in his view, includes an overtime compensation claim prosecuted before the commissioner.
We exercise our independent review to determine whether the Legislature intended the term "civil action" as it appears in section 1194 () to mean only actions in a court of justice or to include administrative proceedings before the commissioner. (Cf. Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group (2002) 29 Cal.4th 345, 357, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 58 P.3d 367; Earley v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1426, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 57 (Earley); Californians for Population Stabilization v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 273, 294, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 621.)
Sampson urges on appeal that section 1194 applies irrespective of whether he initiated his overtime compensation claim in a judicial or administrative forum. Sampson's argument requires us to review the procedural context in which this attorney fees dispute arises.
Under the Labor Code, (Cuadra v. Millan (1998) 17 Cal.4th 855, 858, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 687, 952 P.2d 704 [italics in original], disapproved on another ground in Samuels v. Mix (1999) 22 Cal.4th 1, 16, fn. 4, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 273, 989 P.2d 701; see also Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 355, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 58 P.3d 367.)5
Sampson filed an administrative complaint with the commissioner to recover overtime compensation and unpaid wages. Labor Code sections 98 through 98.2 confers authority on the commissioner to adjudicate these wage claims through an administrative process. In Post v. Palo/Haklar & Associates (2000) 23 Cal.4th 942, 946-948, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 671, 4 P.3d 928 (Post), our Supreme Court summarized that administrative process:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Corrales v. Bradstreet, C051407.
...incurred in the trial court, not in the administrative hearing. (§ 98.2, subd. (c), fn. 23, ante; Sampson v. Parking Service 2000 Com., Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 212, 228, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 595 [in section 98.2 trial de novo, successful employee was not entitled to recover attorney's fees in......
-
Nishiki v. Danko Meredith, APC
...in connection with the administrative hearing, for which attorney fees are not available. ( Sampson v. Parking Service 2000 Com., Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 212, 228–230, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 595.) This is simply speculation, and it is not borne out by the billing statements submitted in support......
-
Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.
...the proceedings are truly `a trial anew in the fullest sense.'"'" (Italics in original.) (Sampson v. Parking Service 2000 Com., Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 212, 219-220, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 595 (Sampson).) "Review is of the facts presented to the trial court, which may include entirely new evide......
-
S. Cal. Pizza Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
...345, 353, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 58 P.3d 367, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Sampson v. Parking Service 2000 Com. Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 212, 220, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 595.)The parties bring our attention to three federal district court cases which have considered whether ......