California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 218.5 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney’s fees and costs upon the initiation of the action. However, if the prevailing party in the court action is not an employee, attorney’s fees and costs shall be awarded pursuant to this section only if the court finds that the employee brought the court action in bad faith. This section shall not apply to an action brought by the Labor Commissioner. This section shall not apply to a surety issuing a bond pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code or to an action to enforce a mechanics lien brought under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 8400) of Title 2 of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code.

(b)This section does not apply to any cause of action for which attorney’s fees are recoverable under Section 1194.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 129 cases (59 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Grant Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Az, 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Grant Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Az, 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “Fritsch sought wages and premiums owed, prejudgment interest, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees under California Labor Code §§ 218.5 and 1194,1 and costs of suit.”

Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins., 556 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “Current law does not compel us to be judicial Luddites, and we may properly accommodate many of the realities of modern law practice, while still securing to federal courts the ability to control and discipline those who practice before them.”

Kirby v. Immoos Fire Prot., Inc., 274 P.3d 1160 (Cal. 2012). · cites it 3× “However, Labor Code section 218.5 “does not apply to any action for which attorney’s fees are recoverable under [Labor Code] Section 1194.”

Blanca Argelia Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2019). “(citing Cal. Labor Code §§ 218.5 , 226, 1194). The district court thus erred in excluding prospective attorneys’ fees from the amount in controversy.”

Dane-Elec Corp. v. Bodokh, 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 163 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). · cites it 4× “*764 INTRODUCTION Labor Code section 218.5, an attorney fee-shifting statute in actions for nonpayment of wages, prohibits a prevailing party employer from recovering attorney fees unless the trial court finds the employee brought the wage claim in bad faith.”

Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Grp., 58 P.3d 367 (Cal. 2002). · cites it 2× “(Lab.Code, §§ 218.5, 1194.) But if the employee first uses the Berman hearing procedure by filing an administrative wage claim, and the employer appeals the Labor Commissioner's award, the employee must prove the wage claims in superior court as if the employee had filed in…”

Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc., 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 606 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “3d 1160 ] [Lab. Code, §§218.5, 1194 do not authorize employees to recover attorney fees on claims for failure to provide meal and rest periods].”

Earley v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 57 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “As is relevant to the issues before us, the notice which the trial court directed be sent provided: “Under California Labor Code Section 218.5, the prevailing parties are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs.”

In re Taco Bell Wage & Hour Actions, 222 F. Supp. 3d 813 (E.D. Cal. 2016). “” Cal. Lab. Code § 218.5 (a). Section 1194 allows an employee to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs if he prevails in an action to recover the full amount of minimum wage or overtime compensation.”

Arave v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 120 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “" ( Lab. Code, § 218.5, subd. (a).) The legislative history indicates the Legislature intends employers to recover fees when they "defeat frivolous claims," which "would align the statute with the state and federal civil rights and employment statutes.”

Siebel v. Mittlesteadt, 166 P.3d 527 (Cal. 2007). “(Lab. Code, § 218.5.) Because Christoffers had failed to recover from Siebel personally, he was granted his litigation costs.”

Victor Garibay v. Archstone Communities LLC, 539 F. App'x 763 (9th Cir. 2013). “2007); Cal. Labor Code § 218.5 , Archstone has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the underlying amount upon which those fees would be based is at least $4 million, as would be required to meet the $5 million minimum.”

Show all 129 citing cases →

— Cal. Labor Code § 218.5(a) — 6 cases

Yeomans v. World Fin. Grp. (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Wang v. Ehang Holdings Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Sanzone v. DCH Korean Imports CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).

Olson v. World Fin. Grp. Ins. Agency, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.