Cases: Allocation

Allocation, Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees: Employee’s Limited Success On Some Compensable Wage/Hour Claims Led To Affirmance Of $17,234 Fee Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Employee Had Requested Fees Of $168,749.47 After Garnering Compensatory Award Of $6,958.36.             This case is another example of how non-compensable claim allocation and limited success can lead to a substantial reduction of a fee request even where there is some fee entitlement basis.             In Caballero v. Bill Muncey Industries, Inc., Case No. D076628 […]

Allocation, Employment, Mulitpliers, Private Attorney General: 1/1 DCA Reverses $2,905,200 In PAGA Penalties Against Defendant, But Affirms $7,793,030 In Attorney Fees Inclusive Of A 2.0 Multiplier

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Fees Award Was Supported By PAGA, Section 1021.5, And The Catalyst Theory, And Apportionment Of Fees Among The Retaliation And PAGA Claims Was Neither Necessary Nor Possible, While Complexity Of Issues And Skill Of Attorneys Supported Multiplier In This Intensely Litigated Case.             In Sargeant v. Board of Trustees of The California State University,

Allocation, Civil Rights, Costs, Employment: Former Employer Properly Was Denied Attorney’s Fees Where FEHA Case Had Some Substance

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment

However, 2/3 DCA Follows Roman Opinion On When To Award Costs On Non-FEHA Claims.             In Chevreaux v. Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, Case Nos. B291268/B292937 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 24, 2021) (unpublished), a jury returned a defense verdict in favor of a former employer on a non-FEHA, Tameny retaliation claim after she dismissed

Allocation, Construction, Section 1717: Contractor Defeating Worker’s Compensation Insurance Claims Not Entitled To Contractual Fees, Which Needed To Be Apportioned On Remand

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Section 1717

No Contractual Fee Provisions Covered The Worker’s Compensation Issues.             Although apportionment is sometimes a discretionary exercise, it can be mandatory where there are non-fee entitlement issues which are likely disparate in nature.              Fernandez v. Escutia, Case Nos. H046529/H047015 (6th Dist. Feb. 24, 2021) (unpublished) is a situation where a contractor won a construction

Allocation, Private Attorney General: Doe v. Westmont College Is Now A Published Decision

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Prevailing Section 1021.5 Parties Successfully Defending The Case On Appeal Are Allowed To Move For Attorney Fees Post-Appeal Even If The Trial Court Denied Their Pre-Appeal Fees Motion.             We discussed Doe v. Westmont College, Case No. B303208 (2d Dist, Div. 6) in our January 26, 2021 post.  The case was unpublished at the time,

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Multipliers, Preemption: Prevailing Lemon Law Plaintiff Winning Only $21,957.25 In Damages At Jury Trial Properly Awarded $169,602 In Attorney Fees, Inclusive Of .2 Multiplier, Against Dealership And Finance Company

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Preemption

Apportionment Was Not Necessary Due To Intertwined Claims, Multiplier Was Appropriate Given Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Contingency Risk, And – Contrary To Lafferty And Spikener – 2/5 DCA Determined That The Holder Rule Does Not Limit The Attorney Fees A Plaintiff May Recover From A Creditor-Assignee.             For a great discussion on the Holder Rule cap and

Allocation, Private Attorney General: Trial Court’s Application Of The Wrong Standard And Inappropriate Basis For Denying Prevailing Plaintiff’s Postappeal Section 1021.5 Motion For Fees Necessitated Remand

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Trial Court Focused On The “Punishment” The Fees Award Would Impose On Defendant For Unsuccessful Appeal Of Judgment Rather Than Examining Determination Factors For Award Under § 1021.5 And Also Erred In Denying Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Apportion Fees Between His Private Interests And The Public Interest.             In Doe v. Westmont College,

Allocation, Section 1717: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Allocation Which Reduced Plaintiff’s Fee Award To $143,257.92 From Requested $800,165.00, Nor In Its Award Of $105,000 In Fees And $4,609.77 In Costs To Prevailing Defendants

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiff Did Not Support Its Arguments With An Adequate Record On Appeal, Citations To The Record And Legal Authority.             Newstart Real Estate Investment v. Huang, Case No. B289513 (2d Dist., Div. 8 December 18, 2020) (unpublished) is a breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy action involving the sale of a Las Vegas Ramada Inn. 

Allocation, Costs: No Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Refused To Tax Costs Among Multiple Defendants Who Settled Out Of The Case Before Trial

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Costs

Costs Incurred By Plaintiffs In Relation To Other Defendants Were Directly Relevant To Case Against Appealing Defendant And Reasonably Necessary To The Litigation.             In Booker v. Imerys Talc America, Case No. A153995 (1st Dist., Div. 3 December 11, 2020) (unpublished), wife and heirs of decedent continued mesothelioma-related litigation against seven defendants after his death. 

Allocation, Employment, Section 998: Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. Is Now A Published Decision

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Section 998

Labor Code Cost-Shifting Provisions Trumped Code of Civil Procedure Section 998’s Cost-Shifting And Meant No Fees/Costs Recovery For Successful Section 998 Defendants.             We discussed Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc., Case No. D075479 (4th Dist., Div. 1), in our October 17, 2020 post, which was unpublished at the time.             In Cruz, defendants

Scroll to Top