Fee petition mechanics · Updated July 2026
California garment worker protection act attorney fee petition mechanics: date of brand guarantor wage failure as primary Welch anchor, Lab. Code § 2675.5 mandatory attorney fees to prevailing employee
California Garment Worker Protection Act enforcement (Lab. Code § 2673.1 — SB 62, effective January 1, 2022; § 2673.1(a): 'Every brand guarantor and manufacturer shall be jointly and severally liable for any and all civil legal responsibility owed to a garment worker employed by any contractor or manufacturer in the supply chain of the brand guarantor or manufacturer. For purposes of this section, civil legal responsibility means any amounts owed to a garment worker including, but not limited to, unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, piece-rate wages, and liquidated damages'; § 2671(b): 'brand guarantor' means any person or entity that contracts for the performance of garment manufacturing operations with a manufacturer; § 2671(e): 'garment manufacturing' means sewing, cutting, making, processing, repairing, finishing, assembling, or otherwise preparing any garment or any article of wearing apparel or accessories; § 2675.5: 'In any civil action brought by or on behalf of garment workers for violation of this chapter, or for the recovery of wages under this chapter, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing employee' — mandatory 'shall award' attorney fees; enacted SB 62 (2021), effective January 1, 2022 — one of the newest statutes in the fee-petition-mechanics series; ONLY page in fee-petition-mechanics series requiring proof of joint and several liability across a BRAND GUARANTOR'S OWN VENDOR COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CALENDAR (SAP Ariba supply chain management, Coupa supplier information management, Oracle Procurement Cloud, TraceOne product lifecycle management, Infor Supply Chain Management, CGS BlueCherry Enterprise Suite — brand's own vendor compliance audit calendar records factory audit dates, wage certification dates, and contract payment dates on the brand's own institutional sourcing calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control); ONLY labor code provision in the fee-petition-mechanics series imposing joint and several liability on BRAND GUARANTORS (fashion brands and retailers such as Fashion Nova, SHEIN, American Apparel, Guess, Forever 21, Ralph Lauren, Target, Walmart sourcing operations) for the wage theft of their garment manufacturer subcontractors; no direct FLSA brand guarantor supply chain liability parallel (FLSA § 203(d) 'employer' definition does not extend to fashion brand guarantors for garment manufacturer subcontractor workers) → pure Ketchum multiplier eligible with no Dague constraint; DISTINCT from § 2810.3 joint employer labor contractor [tier_uuu — § 2810.3 covers staffing agency client employer joint liability; § 2673.1 covers FASHION BRAND/RETAILER GUARANTOR liability specific to garment manufacturing supply chain], § 226.8 willful misclassification [tier_qqq — § 226.8 covers independent contractor misclassification penalty; § 2673.1 covers wage theft liability in garment supply chain]; Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001); PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000); Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar from DATE OF BRAND GUARANTOR'S FAILURE TO ENSURE GARMENT WORKER WAGE PAYMENT; Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees) — solos billing hourly on mandatory attorney fees — in actions where the primary Welch temporal anchor is the DATE OF THE BRAND GUARANTOR'S FAILURE TO ENSURE GARMENT WORKER WAGE PAYMENT (the ONLY primary anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series requiring proof of joint and several liability across the BRAND GUARANTOR'S OWN VENDOR COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CALENDAR; SAP Ariba, Coupa, Oracle Procurement Cloud, TraceOne, Infor Supply Chain Management, CGS BlueCherry Enterprise Suite each record factory audit dates, wage compliance certification dates, and production contract payment dates on the brand's own institutional vendor compliance and sourcing calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; ONLY page where FASHION BRANDS and RETAILERS are defendants through supply chain guarantor liability; DISTINCT from § 2810.3 joint employer [tier_uuu — staffing agency supply chain; § 2673.1 is garment manufacturing supply chain with brand guarantor liability]; no FLSA brand guarantor parallel → pure Ketchum no Dague) — generate three billing gaps driven by § 2673.1 brand guarantor liability analysis and garment worker wage failure documentation advisory calls, the concurrent brand guarantor vendor compliance calendar and DLSE Garment Industry Section enforcement calendar and DOL Wage and Hour Division hot goods enforcement calendar advisory calls on external institutional calendars entirely outside attorney control, and the § 2675.5 attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier advisory calls: § 2673.1 brand guarantor liability analysis and garment worker wage failure documentation advisory calls (7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% untracked ≈ 5.39 hrs = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr), brand guarantor vendor compliance calendar advisory and DLSE Garment Industry Section enforcement calendar advisory and DOL WHD hot goods enforcement calendar advisory (6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 7.26 hrs = $2,178–$3,630/year), and § 2675.5 attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier advisory calls (5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 4.03 hrs = $1,210–$2,017/year). For a solo California garment worker protection practice, the annual billing gap from advisory call underlogging is $5,005–$8,342.
TL;DR
ClaimHour captures every § 2673.1 brand guarantor liability analysis and garment worker wage failure documentation advisory call that starts the § 2675.5 fee documentation period from the DATE OF THE BRAND GUARANTOR'S FAILURE TO ENSURE GARMENT WORKER WAGE PAYMENT (in the brand guarantor's own SAP Ariba/Coupa/Oracle Procurement Cloud/TraceOne/Infor Supply Chain/CGS BlueCherry vendor compliance management system calendar — ONLY anchor in series in fashion brand or retailer's own vendor compliance and sourcing institutional calendar; § 2675.5 mandatory 'shall award' attorney fees to prevailing employee; SB 62, effective January 1, 2022; ONLY page where FASHION BRANDS and RETAILERS are defendants through brand guarantor joint and several liability; no FLSA brand guarantor parallel → pure Ketchum no Dague; DISTINCT from § 2810.3 joint employer [tier_uuu] and § 226.8 willful misclassification [tier_qqq]), every concurrent brand guarantor vendor compliance calendar advisory and DLSE Garment Industry Section enforcement calendar advisory and DOL WHD hot goods hold calendar advisory on external institutional calendars entirely outside the attorney's scheduling control, and every § 2675.5 attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier advisory call on the post-judgment fee petition calendar — passively, no timer, no audio, no call contents. $29–$59/mo. No PMS required.
§ 2673.1 brand guarantor liability analysis and garment worker wage failure documentation: calls on the brand guarantor's own vendor compliance management system calendar
The DATE OF THE BRAND GUARANTOR'S FAILURE TO ENSURE GARMENT WORKER WAGE PAYMENT is the primary Welch temporal anchor for § 2675.5 attorney fee billing documentation in a Lab. Code § 2673.1 Garment Worker Protection Act action. This date is in the brand guarantor's own vendor compliance management system calendar — recording the payroll processing cycle on which the garment manufacturer failed to pay the garment worker, triggering the brand guarantor's joint and several liability, on an institutional calendar outside the garment worker attorney's scheduling control. The Hensley lodestar starts from this date for five reasons: (1) the brand guarantor's own vendor compliance management system records the factory audit and wage certification dates: SAP Ariba supply chain management, Coupa supplier information management, Oracle Procurement Cloud, TraceOne product lifecycle management, Infor Supply Chain Management, CGS BlueCherry Enterprise Suite each record factory audit dates, wage compliance certification submission dates, and corrective action plan due dates for each garment manufacturer in the brand's supply chain on the brand's own institutional vendor compliance calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; (2) the brand guarantor's own procurement system records the production order and payment dates: SAP Ariba, Coupa, Oracle Procurement Cloud record the production order execution date, invoice approval date, and payment release date for each garment manufacturer — establishing the brand guarantor's active contracting relationship with the garment manufacturer at the time of the garment worker's wage failure; (3) the garment manufacturer's own payroll processing calendar records the wage failure date: Gusto, ADP Run, Paychex Flex, Rippling, Paylocity, OnPay each record the payroll processing date and payment disbursement date for garment worker wages — the payroll failure date (a missed, short, or piece-rate-deficient payroll run) is on the garment manufacturer's own institutional payroll calendar, which is a separate external institutional calendar constraint; (4) the DLSE Garment Industry Registration database records whether the garment manufacturer was registered at the time of the wage failure: § 2671 requires garment manufacturers to register with the DLSE before engaging in garment manufacturing in California; the DLSE's own registration database records the garment manufacturer's registration dates and any periods of lapsed registration entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; (5) the brand guarantor's own supply chain mapping records establish which garment manufacturers were in the brand's supply chain at the time of the wage failure: if the garment manufacturer used an unauthorized subcontractor to produce garments, the unauthorized subcontractor's absence from the brand's approved supplier list in the brand's own SAP Ariba or Coupa approved vendor database establishes the unauthorized subcontracting at the time of the wage failure.
Three initial advisory call types generate untracked billing from the wage failure date: (1) § 2673.1 brand guarantor identification and joint and several liability analysis advisory — arrives when garment worker retains § 2673.1 counsel (§ 2673.1 eligibility analysis: [a] identify the brand guarantor: § 2671(b) defines 'brand guarantor' as any person or entity that contracts for the performance of garment manufacturing operations with a manufacturer; identify the fashion brand, retailer, or apparel company that contracted with the garment manufacturer that employed the garment worker; [b] confirm the garment worker's employment by a contractor or manufacturer in the brand guarantor's supply chain: § 2673.1(a) requires that the garment worker be 'employed by any contractor or manufacturer in the supply chain of the brand guarantor'; establish the supply chain relationship (brand guarantor → garment manufacturer → garment worker) from the brand guarantor's own vendor compliance and procurement records; [c] identify the wage failure date: the specific payroll cycle on which the garment manufacturer failed to pay minimum wage, overtime, or piece-rate wages to the garment worker — on the garment manufacturer's own payroll processing calendar (Gusto, ADP Run, Paychex Flex payroll cycle dates); [d] confirm the garment worker is engaged in 'garment manufacturing': § 2671(e) defines garment manufacturing as sewing, cutting, making, processing, repairing, finishing, assembling, or otherwise preparing any garment or article of wearing apparel or accessories; [e] calculate wages due: SB 62 eliminates the piece-rate safe harbor — § 2675.7 prohibits piece rates for garment workers where the piece rate results in total compensation below minimum wage; all garment workers must earn at least minimum wage for all hours worked regardless of piece-rate output; 42–48 min per call); (2) brand guarantor vendor compliance records and supply chain mapping advisory — arrives when brand guarantor's institutional records are needed to establish the supply chain relationship (brand guarantor calendar analysis: [a] SAP Ariba supplier database: the brand guarantor's SAP Ariba approved vendor database records the garment manufacturer's registration date, approval status, and any suspension or deregistration dates on the brand's own institutional supply chain management calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; [b] Coupa supplier information management: the brand's Coupa SIM records supplier onboarding dates, compliance certification dates, and supplier risk assessment dates on the brand's own institutional calendar; [c] TraceOne/Infor product lifecycle management: the brand's PLM system records production order assignment dates, specification approval dates, and quality audit dates for each garment style in the brand's product catalog — on the brand's own institutional PLM calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; [d] CGS BlueCherry Enterprise Suite: fashion brand's BlueCherry PLM and production management records production order dates, factory capacity allocation dates, and shipping milestone dates on the brand's own institutional calendar; [e] brand's ethical sourcing audit records: if the brand uses a third-party social compliance auditing firm (Bureau Veritas, SGS, ELEVATE, QIMA) to audit its garment manufacturers, the audit firm's own institutional audit calendar records the factory audit dates and findings entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; 42–48 min per call); (3) SB 62 piece-rate minimum wage compliance and DLSE registration calendar analysis advisory — arrives when the piece-rate wage structure or DLSE registration status is at issue (SB 62 compliance analysis: [a] SB 62 piece-rate prohibition: § 2675.7 prohibits compensating garment workers on a piece-rate basis where the total piece-rate earnings for all hours worked in a workweek would be less than the applicable minimum wage — the garment manufacturer's own piece-rate payroll records establish whether the piece-rate earnings satisfied the minimum wage floor; [b] DLSE Garment Industry Registration calendar: § 2671 requires annual garment industry registration with the DLSE; the DLSE's own registration database records registration status as of the wage failure date — a garment manufacturer operating without current registration is in per se violation; [c] DLSE brand guarantor liability notification requirements: § 2673.2 requires brand guarantors to maintain records of all garment manufacturers in their supply chain and make those records available to the DLSE on request; the brand's own supply chain recordkeeping calendar (SAP Ariba, Coupa, Oracle Procurement Cloud) records the supply chain documentation maintained by the brand entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; [d] no FLSA brand guarantor supply chain liability parallel (FLSA § 203(d) 'employer' definition does not reach fashion brand guarantors for garment manufacturer subcontractor workers; the FLSA's joint employment doctrine under 29 C.F.R. § 791.2 applies to co-employers in shared employment arrangements but not to supply chain guarantors) → pure Ketchum no Dague for the entire § 2675.5 state claim; 42–48 min per call). At 55% untracked: 7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% = 323.4 min / 60 = 5.39 hours = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr.
Brand guarantor vendor compliance calendar and DLSE Garment Industry Section enforcement calendar and DOL Wage and Hour Division hot goods enforcement calendar: calls on external institutional calendars entirely outside attorney control
A California Lab. Code § 2673.1 Garment Worker Protection Act case typically involves three concurrent external institutional calendars that run entirely outside the garment worker attorney's scheduling control: the brand guarantor's own vendor compliance management system calendar [SAP Ariba, Coupa, Oracle Procurement Cloud, TraceOne, Infor Supply Chain Management, CGS BlueCherry Enterprise Suite each maintain institutional vendor compliance calendars recording: (a) factory audit dates: the brand guarantor's vendor compliance team or third-party auditor records factory audit dates, audit findings, and corrective action plan completion deadlines on the brand's own institutional vendor compliance calendar — these audit dates establish what the brand knew about the garment manufacturer's labor practices and when; (b) wage compliance certification submission dates: the brand's vendor compliance system records the date each garment manufacturer submitted wage compliance certifications (typically quarterly or annually) on the brand's own institutional calendar; (c) production order and payment dates: the brand's procurement system records production order execution dates, invoice approval dates, and payment release dates — establishing the brand's contracting relationship with the garment manufacturer at the time of the wage failure; (d) supplier suspension and termination dates: if the brand suspended or terminated the garment manufacturer after discovering wage violations, the suspension date in the brand's own vendor compliance system may postdate the garment worker's earliest wage failure date — establishing that the brand had constructive knowledge of wage violations before the suspension date]; the California DLSE Garment Industry Section enforcement calendar [the DLSE Garment Industry Section maintains its own institutional enforcement calendar for § 2673.1 violations: (a) DLSE investigation opening date: the DLSE Garment Industry Section records the date on which it opened an investigation of the specific garment manufacturer or brand guarantor on the DLSE's own institutional enforcement calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; (b) DLSE factory site inspection calendar: the DLSE conducts factory site inspections on a schedule set by the DLSE's own institutional calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; the DLSE's site inspection reports contain payroll records and production records obtained during the inspection — these records may be accessible to garment worker civil counsel through a California Public Records Act request, but the DLSE's own records production calendar runs on the DLSE's institutional calendar; (c) DLSE civil penalty assessment calendar: § 2675(a) authorizes civil penalties of $200 per pay period per garment worker for each wage violation — the DLSE's civil penalty assessment date, employer response deadline, and administrative hearing date run on the DLSE's own institutional calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; (d) DLSE Garment Industry Registration suspension calendar: the DLSE may suspend a garment manufacturer's registration for repeated wage violations — the suspension date in the DLSE's own institutional registration database creates a parallel institutional calendar constraint]; and the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division enforcement calendar [the DOL Wage and Hour Division enforces the FLSA in garment manufacturing and may take enforcement action against garment manufacturers and brand guarantors for FLSA wage violations: (a) WHD investigation opening date: if the DOL WHD has opened an FLSA investigation of the garment manufacturer in the brand's supply chain, the WHD investigation opening date is on the WHD's own institutional enforcement calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; (b) WHD hot goods hold calendar: under 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(1), the WHD may issue a 'hot goods' hold — a directive preventing the interstate shipment or sale of garments produced in violation of the FLSA — on the brand guarantor; the WHD's hot goods hold issuance date is on the WHD's own institutional enforcement calendar; a hot goods hold issued against the brand guarantor's garment production immediately impacts the brand's ability to ship and sell the non-compliant garments; the hot goods release date (after the brand pays back wages and penalties) is also on the WHD's own institutional calendar entirely outside garment worker civil attorney's scheduling control; (c) WHD back wage consent agreement calendar: the WHD's own back wage assessment, consent agreement signature date, and installment payment schedule run on the WHD's own institutional calendar entirely outside garment worker civil attorney's scheduling control; (d) CBP forced labor goods detention calendar: U.S. Customs and Border Protection may detain garments suspected of being produced by forced or underpaid labor under 19 U.S.C. § 307 — the CBP's own detention and admissibility determination calendar runs on CBP's institutional calendar entirely outside garment worker civil attorney's scheduling control]. Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001). PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000). Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar from DATE OF BRAND GUARANTOR'S FAILURE TO ENSURE GARMENT WORKER WAGE PAYMENT. Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees.
Three concurrent external institutional calendar advisory call types generate untracked billing: (1) brand guarantor vendor compliance system and supply chain audit calendar advisory — arrives when brand guarantor's institutional records are needed to establish supply chain relationship and constructive knowledge (brand guarantor calendar analysis: [a] SAP Ariba/Coupa/Oracle Procurement Cloud supplier records: the brand's own institutional supply chain management calendar records the garment manufacturer's approved supplier status, audit dates, audit findings, and corrective action plan completion dates — establishing what the brand knew about the garment manufacturer's labor practices and when; [b] TraceOne/Infor/BlueCherry PLM production order calendar: the brand's PLM records production order assignment dates and factory capacity allocation dates — establishing the brand's active supply chain relationship with the garment manufacturer at the time of the wage failure; [c] third-party auditor institutional calendar: Bureau Veritas, SGS, ELEVATE, QIMA each conduct factory social compliance audits on schedules set by the auditing firm's own institutional calendar — audit dates, audit findings, and corrective action plan deadlines are on the auditing firm's own institutional calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; [d] brand guarantor's ethical sourcing disclosure calendar: the brand's own corporate social responsibility (CSR) report publication calendar records when the brand publicly disclosed its supplier list and sourcing audit results — on the brand's own institutional communications calendar; 44–50 min per call); (2) DLSE Garment Industry Section enforcement calendar and DLSE registration database advisory — arrives when DLSE is investigating or has cited the garment manufacturer (DLSE calendar analysis: [a] DLSE Garment Industry Registration database: the DLSE's own registration database records the garment manufacturer's registration status (registered, lapsed, suspended, revoked) as of the wage failure date — DLSE records production and personnel records from its own institutional database calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; [b] DLSE investigation calendar: the DLSE investigation opening date, site inspection date, and citation issuance date run on the DLSE's own institutional calendar; if the garment worker files a DLSE wage claim simultaneously with a civil § 2673.1 action, the DLSE administrative claim calendar creates a parallel institutional calendar constraint; [c] DLSE civil penalty calendar: the DLSE's $200/pay-period/worker civil penalty assessment calendar runs on the DLSE's own institutional calendar; [d] DLSE brand guarantor notification: § 2673.2 requires brand guarantors to maintain and disclose supply chain records to the DLSE — the DLSE's own request and disclosure calendar creates a discovery-like institutional calendar constraint entirely outside garment worker civil attorney's scheduling control; 44–50 min per call); (3) DOL WHD hot goods hold calendar advisory and CBP forced labor detention advisory — arrives when federal enforcement overlaps with the civil § 2673.1 action (federal enforcement calendar analysis: [a] WHD hot goods hold: the DOL WHD's own institutional calendar for hot goods hold issuance, compliance, and release creates immediate pressure on the brand guarantor to pay back wages — the brand's motivation to resolve the civil § 2673.1 action may be amplified by an outstanding WHD hot goods hold; [b] WHD back wage consent agreement calendar: the WHD's back wage assessment and consent agreement calendar may establish wage rates and back wage amounts that are relevant to the garment worker's civil § 2673.1 damages calculation; [c] FLSA joint employment analysis: the WHD's FLSA investigation may produce a joint employment determination as between the garment manufacturer and the brand guarantor under 29 C.F.R. § 791.2 — if the WHD determines that the brand guarantor is a joint employer under the FLSA, that determination may inform the California § 2673.1 analysis even though the FLSA's joint employment standard is more restrictive than § 2673.1's brand guarantor liability standard; [d] no FLSA brand guarantor supply chain liability parallel (FLSA § 203(d) 'employer' definition does not extend to fashion brand guarantors for garment manufacturer subcontractor workers) → pure Ketchum multiplier for the entire § 2675.5 state claim without Dague constraint; 44–50 min per call). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% = 435.6 min / 60 = 7.26 hours = $2,178–$3,630/year at $300–$500/hr.
§ 2675.5 attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier: calls on the post-judgment fee petition calendar
Lab. Code § 2675.5 provides mandatory attorney fees and costs to a prevailing garment worker: 'In any civil action brought by or on behalf of garment workers for violation of this chapter, or for the recovery of wages under this chapter, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing employee.' The § 2675.5 fee petition requires a Hensley lodestar from the DATE OF THE BRAND GUARANTOR'S FAILURE TO ENSURE GARMENT WORKER WAGE PAYMENT through § 2673.1 brand guarantor liability analysis, supply chain mapping, brand guarantor vendor compliance calendar monitoring, DLSE Garment Industry Section enforcement calendar monitoring, DOL WHD hot goods hold calendar monitoring, litigation, and fee petition. Because there is no direct FLSA brand guarantor supply chain liability parallel (FLSA § 203(d) 'employer' definition does not extend to fashion brand guarantors for garment manufacturer subcontractor workers; FLSA's joint employment doctrine does not reach supply chain guarantor relationships), no Ketchum/Dague split is required — the pure Ketchum five-factor multiplier applies to the entire § 2675.5 state claim. Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001). PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000). Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983). Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees.
Two § 2675.5 post-judgment advisory call types generate untracked billing: (1) § 2675.5 damages calculation and fee petition component assembly advisory — arrives at judgment (§ 2675.5 damages components: [a] unpaid minimum wages: the difference between minimum wage for all hours worked and the piece-rate earnings actually paid, calculated from the garment manufacturer's own payroll records from the wage failure date; [b] unpaid overtime wages: if the garment worker worked more than 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week, overtime is owed at 1.5× or 2× the regular rate — calculated from the garment manufacturer's own time and attendance records; [c] liquidated damages: Lab. Code § 1194.2 provides liquidated damages equal to unpaid minimum wages — the liquidated damages amount is calculated from the garment manufacturer's own payroll records; [d] § 2673.1 brand guarantor joint and several liability: the brand guarantor is jointly and severally liable for all unpaid wages and liquidated damages — the Hensley lodestar for the § 2675.5 fee petition includes hours spent establishing the supply chain relationship and identifying the brand guarantor defendants; [e] § 2675.5 attorney fees Hensley lodestar from DATE OF BRAND GUARANTOR'S FAILURE TO ENSURE GARMENT WORKER WAGE PAYMENT: brand guarantor identification and supply chain mapping hours; vendor compliance system calendar monitoring hours; DLSE enforcement calendar monitoring hours; DOL WHD hot goods calendar monitoring hours; PAGA § 2699 concurrent penalty calculation hours (if applicable); litigation hours; fee petition hours; Missouri v. Jenkins fees-on-fees; 44–50 min per call); (2) pure Ketchum five-factor multiplier analysis advisory — arrives at fee petition (Ketchum five-factor multiplier analysis for § 2675.5 fee petition [Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001)]; pure Ketchum — no Dague constraint — because FLSA brand guarantor supply chain liability does not exist under federal law: [a] SB 62 brand guarantor definition applicability uncertainty — whether the specific fashion brand or retailer constituted a 'brand guarantor' under § 2671(b) required identifying the contracting relationship between the brand and the garment manufacturer, which required accessing the brand's own vendor compliance management system records entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control at inception; [b] supply chain tracing uncertainty — tracing the garment worker's employer back to the brand guarantor through the supply chain required documentary evidence from multiple institutional calendars (brand's procurement records, garment manufacturer's production records, DLSE registration database) that were entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control at inception; [c] piece-rate minimum wage compliance calculation uncertainty — calculating whether the garment manufacturer's piece-rate payments satisfied the minimum wage for all hours worked required access to both the piece-rate payment records and the actual hours worked records, both on the garment manufacturer's own institutional payroll calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control at inception; [d] DLSE registration status uncertainty — whether the garment manufacturer was registered with the DLSE as required by § 2671 at the time of the wage failure required accessing the DLSE's registration database — an institutional calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control; [e] brand guarantor defendant asset uncertainty — identifying which brand guarantor entities had sufficient California nexus and California assets to satisfy a judgment for joint and several liability required corporate structure investigation at inception; PLCM Group 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) prevailing market rate for wage and hour litigation; Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees; 44–50 min per call). At 55% untracked: 5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% = 242 min / 60 = 4.03 hours = $1,210–$2,017/year at $300–$500/hr.
How ClaimHour fits California § 2673.1 garment worker protection practice
California Garment Worker Protection Act Lab. Code § 2673.1 solos billing hourly on mandatory attorney fees — with § 2673.1 brand guarantor liability analysis and garment worker wage failure documentation advisory calls arriving when garment worker retains § 2673.1 counsel (DATE OF BRAND GUARANTOR'S FAILURE TO ENSURE GARMENT WORKER WAGE PAYMENT = primary Welch anchor; in brand guarantor's own SAP Ariba/Coupa/Oracle Procurement Cloud/TraceOne/Infor Supply Chain/CGS BlueCherry vendor compliance management system calendar — ONLY anchor in series in fashion brand or retailer's own vendor compliance and sourcing institutional calendar; § 2675.5 mandatory 'shall award' attorney fees to prevailing employee; SB 62, effective January 1, 2022; ONLY labor code provision imposing joint and several liability on FASHION BRANDS and RETAILERS (brand guarantors) for garment manufacturer subcontractor wage theft; no FLSA brand guarantor supply chain liability parallel → pure Ketchum no Dague; DISTINCT from § 2810.3 joint employer [tier_uuu — staffing agency client employer joint liability; § 2673.1 is fashion brand/retailer guarantor liability in garment manufacturing supply chain]; DISTINCT from § 226.8 willful misclassification [tier_qqq — independent contractor misclassification penalty; § 2673.1 is wage theft liability in garment supply chain]), brand guarantor vendor compliance management system advisory calls on the brand's own SAP Ariba/Coupa/Oracle Procurement Cloud/TraceOne/BlueCherry institutional vendor compliance calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control, DLSE Garment Industry Section enforcement calendar advisory calls on the DLSE's own institutional enforcement calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control, DOL Wage and Hour Division hot goods hold enforcement calendar advisory calls on the WHD's own institutional calendar entirely outside garment worker attorney's scheduling control, CBP forced labor detention calendar advisory calls, and § 2675.5 attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier advisory calls arriving at judgment — and if your § 2675.5 lodestar documentation must satisfy the Hensley contemporaneous-record standard from the DATE OF BRAND GUARANTOR'S FAILURE TO ENSURE GARMENT WORKER WAGE PAYMENT through brand guarantor identification, supply chain mapping, vendor compliance calendar monitoring, DLSE enforcement calendar monitoring, DOL WHD hot goods calendar monitoring, and § 2675.5 damages, pure Ketchum multiplier, and fee petition, ClaimHour was built for that gap.