Michael Harrington v. Payroll Entertainment Services, Inc.
In the Court of Appeals of the State of California
Second Appellate District, Division of One
Cite as 2008 SOS 1314
Superior Court No.BC343856

The Appellate Court Provided Plaintiff $500 for Reasonable Attorney’s Fees

The real dispute in this case was between a payroll company and a one day employee of a movie production company who was not paid $44 in overtime and whose pay stub was technically deficient. Michael Harrington is a police officer of the Los Angeles County. One day, while on off-duty, Harrington provided traffic and crowd control services for a movie, “The man in the Chair” for 14-hours.

The movie’s payroll services provider, Payroll Entertainment Services, Inc. (PESI), relying on a formula provided by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, underpaid Harrington by $44.63.

Two weeks later, Harrington filed a class action against PESI alleging Labor Code violations against him and against a class comprised of retired and off-duty police officers to whom PESI had issued checks.

Consequently, PESI filed its answer. After which, Harrington filed a formulaic motion for class certification.

The trial court denied the motion for class certification.

Trial was scheduled. However, shortly before trial the case was settled at a mandatory settlement conference. The matters of the settlement are the following:

1. PESI agreed to pay $10,500 ($500 of which was to be paid to the State of California Labor and Workforce Development Agency for statutory penalties (Lab. Code, § 2699), the balance to Harrington)


2. PESI agreed that Harrington was the “prevailing party” for purposes of an attorney fee award


3. PESI agreed that the trial court would determine the reasonableness of the fee claimed by Harrington’s lawyers


4. The money was paid when due

In due course, Harrington filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees in which he asked for $46,277.

Of course, PESI opposed the motion, contending the facts of this case did not justify any award of fees at all, let alone an award in the amount requested.

The trial court denied the motion for award of attorney’s fees, explaining its ruling thus:

• The evidence showed that [PESI] was only a payroll company responsible for issuing paychecks to Harrington and others employed by a motion picture production company


• The court concludes that a demand for attorneys’ fees in excess of four times the amount recovered is unreasonable and excessive


• To award an additional amount of money for attorneys’ fees would be confiscatory and unfair

Harrington appeals from the order denying his motion for fees claiming that that he has a statutory right to recover his reasonable fees.

On appeal the Court of Appeals of the State of California Second Appellate District, Division of One agrees with Harrington and award him $500 for his reasonable attorney’s fees, thus:

• Where plaintiff in dispute over overtime pay of $44.63 that was settled in plaintiff's favor for $10,500 asked trial court for $46,000 in attorney's fees, trial court erred in denying fees to plaintiff outright because plaintiff was entitled collect "reasonable" fees under Labor Code Sections. 1194(a), 2699(g) and 266(e);


• Given the amount in dispute, and that plaintiff was underpaid as result of an honest mistake made in reliance on a formula provided by his union, plaintiff was entitled to only $500 in fees because trial court could not reasonably have awarded fees in excess of amount.

Thus, the appellate court agrees and reverses the order of the trial court, and award him $500 for his fees.