'I Made The Mistake of Representing Myself': Attorney Gives Up Years-Long Fight Over $300
Thomas Beck, a Southern California lawyer who specializes in police misconduct cases, estimates that his fight with a former employee over about $300 in back pay cost him upwards of $100,000.
January 03, 2019 at 06:41 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
What started as a dispute over about $300 in unpaid wages, has cost Southern California lawyer Thomas Beck five years of grief and, by his estimate, about $100,000.
In a decision issued last month and published Wednesday, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld a $57,420 appellate fee award against Beck. The court, weighing in on Beck's case for the second time, sided with his former employee's lawyer, finding that the employee was entitled to appellate attorneys fees.
Beck maintained the Second District's directive in its prior ruling that “the parties are to bear their own costs of appeal” foreclosed the possibility for his former employee getting appellate fees and stripped the trial court of jurisdiction over the issue. In its opinion, however, the Second District upheld the trial court which had found that the attorneys fees were a separate issue from costs and that the employee was entitled to them by statute.
“This case began as a dispute over approximately $300 in unpaid wages. It has since transmogrified into a dispute concerning attorney fees totaling nearly 200 times that amount,” wrote Second District Justice Audrey Collins. ”Marshaling the record and affirmatively demonstrating error are the appellant's burdens, and Beck failed to carry those burdens here,” she wrote.
Reached by phone Thursday, Beck said that he doesn't intend to seek further review because there isn't grounds for one. “[The court] just rejected all my arguments and made new law,” he said. “I'm sorry about the anxiety this has cost me, and the financial cost is overwhelming.”
Beck's misadventure started back in November 2013 when Anthony Stratton, a short-time employee of his firm, made a claim for about $300 in unpaid wages after quitting while Beck was out of town. Beck called in his remaining hours to his payroll company, ADP, and for reasons still unknown, Stratton ended up getting short-changed—paid $771.45 instead of the requested $1,075.
Stratton filed a complaint the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, the entity that enforces California's labor laws, and the Labor Commissioner granted him his $303.50, plus interest and penalties bringing the total Beck owed to around $6,000.
Beck appealed that decision to Los Angeles Superior Court, but in doing so, made a crucial mistake. He did not file the civil case cover sheet required for all civil cases—the form on which a party indicates whether a civil case is limited or unlimited. That led to multiple findings that the case was unlimited, meaning the trial court and appellate court had jurisdiction and attorneys fees were fair game.
Stratton's lawyer, David M. Balter, assistant chief counsel with the state's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, said that appellate fees can be awarded under Labor Code section 98.2 (c). “What we think is important is that employers understand, yes, they have a right to appeal but it's not something the claimant needs to finance,” throughout prolonged litigation, Balter said.
“If the employer pushes litigation and they're not successful in completely eliminating the worker's claim, it could be a very uneconomical decision,” Balter said.
In a prepared statement California Labor Commissioner Julie Su said that employers should pay all the wages workers are due at the time they're earned.
“In this case, Beck could have paid his paralegal the $300 in wages owed,” Su said. “By not doing so even after my office found that the wages were owed and instead making unwarranted challenges to the Labor Commissioner's decision, he now owes more than $100,000.”
Beck, for his part, said that “if there was a bright spot to this” it would be if the ruling “furthers people who are getting ripped off getting their money sooner.”
“That wasn't my claim,” Beck said. “My guy walked off the job, I called in his hours and my payroll service made a mistake.”
“I didn't really want to bring ADP into it although I probably should have,” Beck said Thursday. “I never thought this would get to the point that it would cost me $100,000″
“I made the mistake of representing myself,” Beck added.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readIn Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
6 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250