Kevin Monaghan, an individual v. TELECOM ITALIA SPARKLE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., a New York Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN MONAGHAN, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TELECOM ITALIA SPARKLE OF
NORTH AMERICA, INC., a New York
Corporation and DOES, 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-55031
D.C. No.
2:13-cv-00646-DSF-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 6, 2018**
Pasadena, California
FILED
JUN 25 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: WARDLAW and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District
Judge.
Kevin Monaghan appeals the district court’s partial denial of his request for
attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in
part and reverse in part.
We affirm the district court’s order concerning Monaghan’s failure-to-pay-
wages-owed claim under California Labor Code section 201, his paystub-violation
claim under California Labor Code section 226, and his statutory claims under
California Labor Code sections 212, 226, and 432 for which he was eligible for
fees under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), California Labor
Code section 2699(g). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion by ruling that Monaghan’s unlawful-retaliation claim under California
Labor Code section 1102.5 was not inextricably intertwined with any of the claims
for which Monaghan was statutorily eligible for fees.
We reverse the district court’s decision to deny fees on Monaghan’s
misclassification claim under California Labor Code section 226.8. Monaghan’s
misclassification claim was inextricably intertwined with his failure-to-pay-wages-
owed claim. A previous panel of this court found no error in the district court’s
*** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

award of fees for that claim. See Monaghan v. Telecom Italia Sparkle of N. Am.,
647 F. App’x 763, 771 (9th Cir. 2016) (“We note that we find no error in the
district court’s award of attorneys’ fees under California Labor Code § 218.5 on
Monaghan’s claim for unpaid wages due to misclassification.”). We are persuaded
that Monaghan successfully removed fees that were unrelated to pursuing this
claim when he reduced his request to $81,767.31. On remand, the district court
shall enter an order increasing Monaghan’s total fee award by an additional
$81,767.31.
The parties shall bear their own costs for this appeal.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
3

-- 3 of 3 --