California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 218.6 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, the court shall award interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the Civil Code, which shall accrue from the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of Division 2.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Culley v. Lincare Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (E.D. Cal. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Culley v. Lincare Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (E.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 2× “Whether Missed Meal Periods Can Form the Basis of an Award , of Interest Plaintiff does not contest Defendant’s claim that a missed meal period cannot support an award of interest under California Labor Code § 218.6. Indeed, Kirby forecloses opposition to Defendants’ argument…”

Andrade v. Arby's Restaurant Grp., Inc., 225 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2016). “A meal break claim does not fall under this category, nor do waiting time penalties. In re: Autozone, Inc.”

Brown v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 710 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “) Labor Code section 218.6 was enacted in 2000 and provides that "[i]n any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, the court shall award interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the Civil Code, which shall…”

Drumm v. Morningstar, Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “” Cal. Lab.Code § 218.6. However, that same “end would not be served by awarding prejudgment interest on punitive damages,” which “are not intended to make the plaintiff whole by compensating for a loss suffered.”

Frontier Homes, LLC v. DiBenedetto (In re DiBenedetto), 560 B.R. 531 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2016). “Based on the fee shifting provisions found in California Labor Code § 218.6 in effect in 2006, he awarded the attorney’s fees to Frontier as defendant on debtor’s failed claims.”

Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc., 365 F. Supp. 3d 980 (2019). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to prejudgment interest under California Labor Code section 218.6, ECF No.”

Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc. (Cal. 2022). · cites it 2× “) Labor Code section 218.6 provides: “In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, the court shall award interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the Civil Code” — i.”

Williams v. Aramark Campus, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2024). · cites it 2× “1, and 1198; Violation of the California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage 12 Orders 5-2001 and 7-2001); (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Owed (Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1197 13 and 1198; Violation of IWC Wage Orders 5-2001 and 7-2001); (3) Failure to Provide Lawful 14 Meal…”

Wang v. Ehang Holdings Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 2× “California Labor Code § 218.6 provides that, “In any action brought 22 for the nonpayment of wages, the court shall award interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate 23 of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the Civil Code, which shall accrue from 24…”

Brown v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). “) Labor Code section 218.6 was enacted in 2000 and provides that “[i]n any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, the court shall award interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the 9 Civil Code, which shall…”

Hernandez v. Aramark Food & Support Servs. Grp., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020). “5 authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees and 24 costs for the prevailing party in “any action brought for the nonpayment of wages”; California 25 Labor Code § 218.6 provides for “interest on all due and unpaid wages” in “any action brought for 26 the nonpayment of wages.”

Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2022). “The Court 10 held that Plaintiffs were not entitled to prejudgment interest on their meal period and rest break 11 claims pursuant to California Labor Code Section 218.6. Id. at 16 .”

Show all 18 citing cases →

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.