Apportionment Principles Are To Be Considered On Remand.
In Buckman v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B305192 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 2, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a compensatory verdict of $288,306.23 on 4 out of 7 claims, including a California Family Rights Act (CFRA) claim giving rise to fee entitlement. Plaintiff requested fees of $1,065,358.75 plus a 2.0 positive multiplier for a total fee award of about $2.121 million under the CRFA fee shifting allowed under FEHA and the private attorney general statute. The trial judge awarded $958,808.75 under FEHA, reducing some claimed hours and awarding no multiplier. On an appeal by City and cross-appeal by Plaintiff, the appellate court reversed two more claims, such that Plaintiff only prevailed on 2 of 7 claims. Given this scenario, the appellate court ordered a reconsideration of the entire fee award on remand, but it did indicate that the lower court should follow apportionment principles, expressly citing Reynolds Metals (our Leading Case No. 5), Thompson, Graciano, and Wysinger (with Wysinger discussing the intertwined exception to apportionment).