Author name: Marc Alexander

Judgment Enforcement: Judgment Debtor Entitled To Fees And Statutory Penalty Where Faxed Demand For Satisfaction Acknowledgment Was Received

Cases: Judgment Enforcement

Fourth District, Division 3 Found Fee Recovery Justified Even Though Satisfaction Demand Not Delivered Per Statute.      Code of Civil Procedure section 724.050 provides the exclusive procedure for compelling an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, requiring the party demanding the acknowledgment to deliver its demand with certain warnings either personally or by U.S. mail. A […]

FEHA Award: Court Of Appeal Affirms $84,000 Fee Award Out Of Requested $686,290.50

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Plaintiff Only Won $55,000 Jury Verdict Plus $18,000 in Costs.      Although awards to winning plaintiffs under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act are encouraged, they must be reasonable in amount. Otherwise, the trial court has broad discretion to deny them in entirety or substantially chop them down from their higher requests. The next

Social Security: U.S. Supreme Court Appears To Be Leaning To The View That Fee Awards Are Clients’ Property Subject to Governmental Offsetting

Cases: Social Security

High Court Recently Hears Arguments in Astrue v. Ratliff.     In our October 1, 2009 post, we reported that the U.S. Supreme Court had accepted review of Astrue v. Ratliff, an Eighth Circuit decision. The issue for consideration was whether Social Security disability fee awards belong to clients, rather than their attorneys, so as to

Private Attorney General Fee Award: $423,975 Award In First Impression Case Of Difficulty Affirmed

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  First District, Division 1 Rejects State’s Challenges to Amount of Fee Award.      In an earlier appeal, certain plaintiffs successfully enjoined enforcement of certain legislation allowing for incarceration for drug-related probations violations because such a sanction was inconsistent with Proposition 36 (the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000). Plaintiffs also successfully defended

SLAPP: Reversal of SLAPP Grant On Two Out Of Four Claims Required Reconsideration of Fee Award

Cases: SLAPP

First District, Division 1 Does Reject That Insurance Defense Counsel Cannot Seek Fee Recovery.      In Roeder v. Gardner, Case No. A123864 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 22, 2010) (unpublished), defendant—through insurance defense counsel—obtained an anti-SLAPP strike of four causes of action out of eight. The trial court awarded $9,325 in mandatory attorney’s fees and

In The News . . . . Class Action Attorneys For Black Farmers May Get A Substantial Fee Recovery

Cases: Class Actions, In The News

$1.25 Billion Settlement Yields Potential Fee Recovery of 4 to 7 %      The U.S. Government announced a tentative $1.25 billion ($1,250,000,000) settlement to resolve a racial discrimination action by black farmers who were denied access to USDA loan programs and denied participation in an earlier class action settlement. Although still subject to congressional authorization

Arbitration: $12.3 Million Compensatory Award And $6.7 Million in Fees, Costs, And Interest Additional Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Deadlines

Second District, Division 8 Does Find Procedural Issue Might Deserve Supreme Court Review, But Affirms Merits Awards.      In Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. v. Bernard, Case No. B207865 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 22, 2010) (certified for publication), arbitration awards of $12.3 million for lost management fees and $6.7 million in attorney’s fees, costs, and

Civil Rights: EEOC Stung With $4,560,285.11 Fee/Costs Award In Title VII Section Suit Found To Be Groundless By Iowa U.S. District Judge

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Court Discusses Substantive Fee Shifting Statute, Lodestar Factors, and Non-Cost Expense Reimbursement Issues in Recent Decision.       EEOC v. Boot, Case No. 07-CV-95-LLR (N.D. Iowa Feb. 9, 2010 Order), is an unusual decision where a United States district judge awarded $4,560,285.11 in fees and costs (broken down as $4,004,371.65 in fees, $463,071.25 in “non-cost”

Scroll to Top