PAGA Penalties and Attorney Fees After Trial: Taduran v. Glidewell
The Court of Appeal affirmed a PAGA penalty and fee award that was far below the amounts requested, confirming trial courts have broad discretion to reduce both penalties and lodestar fees.
Need to Know
- Trial courts may reduce PAGA penalties by a reasonable method, including a per-employee approach, after considering whether the maximum statutory penalty would be unjust, arbitrary, oppressive, or confiscatory.
- A prevailing PAGA plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the full lodestar or a positive multiplier.
- Results matter. The Court of Appeal approved a negative multiplier where the penalties recovered were a small fraction of the amount sought and the claims were relatively straightforward.
What Happened
Abraham Taduran sued his former employer, James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., under the Private Attorneys General Act. After trial, the court found several Labor Code violations and awarded civil penalties, including penalties tied to wage statements, rest periods, uptime, and bonus pay.
The plaintiff argued for a much larger penalty award and then sought more than $1.57 million in attorney fees, based on a lodestar of roughly $1.047 million and a requested 1.5 multiplier. The trial court awarded a civil penalty judgment of about $516,000, accepted the lodestar calculation as a starting point, but applied a 0.70 multiplier and awarded $733,440 in attorney fees plus costs.
What the Court Decided
The Court of Appeal affirmed. On civil penalties, it held that Labor Code section 2699(e)(2) gives trial courts discretion to reduce otherwise maximum PAGA penalties when the maximum would be unjust, arbitrary, oppressive, or confiscatory. The statute does not require only one reduction method.
That mattered because the plaintiff argued the court was required to calculate reduced penalties only through a per-pay-period framework. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Once the court calculated the statutory maximum, it could choose a reasonable way to reduce the award, including by looking at the number of affected employees.
On fees, the appellate court held the trial court adequately explained why a negative multiplier was warranted. The claims were records-based and relatively straightforward, the plaintiff recovered less than one percent of the penalties sought, current hourly rates already compensated counsel for delay on older work, and the contingency risk was only slight by the time much of the work was done.
Why It Matters
Taduran is useful for both sides of PAGA litigation because it separates entitlement from amount. A plaintiff can prove Labor Code violations and still face substantial reductions if the requested penalty figure is disproportionate to the violations, the number of employees affected, or the practical result of the case.
The fee ruling is just as important. PAGA fee motions often begin with a lodestar and then argue for an upward multiplier. This decision confirms that the lodestar remains only the starting point. Trial courts may move downward when the case result, complexity, risk, and billing context support it.
ShortLegal Takeaway
For employees and PAGA representatives, the lesson is to build the case around provable violations and a realistic penalty theory from the start. For employers, the decision provides a roadmap for challenging penalty and fee requests that are untethered from the practical impact of the violations proved.
The Bottom Line
This decision is part of a fast-moving body of California employment law. The practical answer in any individual case will depend on the claims, documents, deadlines, procedural posture, and forum.
Have a California Employment Issue?
ShortLegal evaluates California employment matters confidentially. Initial consultations cost nothing.