On Jan. 15, 2007, plaintiff Yiming Mack started working as a paralegal, secretary and administrative assistant for Charles Smith at the firm Harnett, Smith & Associates (now Harnett, Smith & Paetkau) in Redwood City. However, the parties signed no written employment agreement. Mack was employed on an hourly basis up until April 1, 2009, when she started receiving a monthly salary. Mack was later discharged from her employment on Aug. 25, 2009. Mack sued Smith, alleging wages and hours violations under the California Labor Code. The case originally went to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, in which a decision was rendered in favor of Smith by Hearing Officer Jean Murphy. However, Mack appealed the decision, which resulted in a de novo hearing in Santa Clara Superior Court. Mack claimed that she was not paid administrative fees for the period of March 23, 2009, through March 31, 2009. She further claimed that she was not paid the appropriate hourly rate in paralegal fees for January 2009 through March 2009, and was underpaid in paralegal fees in June 2009 and July 2009. Smith claimed that he owed neither the administrative fees nor the paralegal fees to Mack because a long-running dispute regarding those monies was settled via an agreement memorialized by an e-mail proposal he sent on April 4, 2009, and by Mack’s subsequent acceptance by way of work in accord with the terms of that proposal. Smith further claimed he owed no paralegal fees for June 2009 and July 2009, or at any other time, because he overpaid Mack and is entitled to an offset of any amount owed., Mack sought $15,420.75 in damages for claimed unpaid wages, which included administrative fees for the period of March 23, 2009, through March 31, 2009, as well as paralegal fees from January 2009 through March 2009, and June 2009 and July 2009. She further sought $16,830 in waiting time penalties, as well as prejudgment interest, costs and attorney’s fees. Smith’s counsel contended that Mack was fully compensated for her work and that she was paid in excess of what she was owed. Specifically, counsel contended that Mack received her full monthly salary from April 1, 2009, to April 25, 2009, as well as received an additional payment of $11,570 and a bonus in excess of $1,000.