Whole Panel Will Now Hear EAJA Fee Recovery Dispute. In our September 8, 2016 post, we discussed Ibrahim v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 835 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016), where the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court order settling the amounts of fees and costs under EAJA to be awarded to […]
However, Plaintiffs’ Answering Brief On The Merits Fee Request Was Properly Denied. In Ortega v. USA/Maricopa County/Sheridan, No. 16-16663 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2018) (published), Plaintiffs obtained an injunction against Maricopa County in a civil rights case. Mr. Sheridan, a now-retired employee of Maricopa County, appealed from a district court’s finding that he committed
However, 4/2 DCA Denied Expert Witness Fees To Unsuccessful FEHA Plaintiff Rejecting CCP § 998 Offer, Parting Company With Contrary Results By 1/5 And 4/1 DCAs. We have to say that 2018 has started out with a bang, producing a decision by the Fourth District, Division 2 acknowledging it is parting company from the
District Court’s Articulation Of Reduction Was Clear Enough. Getting a shave. "Uncle Joe Cannon getting one of his last congressional shaves. Bert Broden has been Uncle Joe's barber for the past twelve years." Feb. 26, 1923. Library of Congress. In Dunlap v. Liberty Natural Products, Inc., Nos. 15-35395/16-35113 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017)
$68,382.38 In Costs Not Allowed To Defense Is The Upshot. In Smith v. Sharp Healthcare, Case No. D069206 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 22, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a case with both FEHA and non-FEHA claims, with the defense filing a costs memorandum seeking $68,382.38 after plaintiff rejected a CCP § 998 offer of
Plaintiff Did Not Prevail On His Monetary Claims, And No Injunction/Declaratory Relief Found Against Defendants. After obtaining a jury’s favorable answer to whether plaintiff’s physical condition was a substantial motivating reason for his termination, the jurors found against plaintiff on whether the conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff. Plaintiff then
Appellant Failed To Raise The Winning Argument For Reversal. Horsley v. Tourmaline Real Estate Partners, LLC, Case No. B277926 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 19, 2017) (unpublished) is a lesson in being careful what you plead in your complaint prayer for relief, because it might trigger a bilateral fee-shifting statute. Plaintiff pled for
Employer Standard Also Applies To Supervising Employee Defendant. In Lopez v. Routt, Case No. B269345 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 29, 2017) (published), the Second District, Division 3 DCA decided that a supervising employee FEHA defendant had to meet the same frivolousness standard as applicable to employer defendant with respect to recovering fees from
Compensatory Award Was $1 Million, With $1,945,295 FEHA Award Affirmed On Appeal. In Lopez v. City of Beverly Hills, Case No. B268451 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2017 unpublished; received for posting Dec. 1, 2017 unpublished), a FEHA plaintiff—after two years of litigation and a 10-day jury trial involving 24 witnesses–won to the
Statutory Fee-Shifting Provisions Can Have Real Force In A Case For A Prevailing Party, Even If The Compensatory Damages Award Is Much Less Than Requested Fees. Federal Theatre. 1936. Library of Congress The Bane Act, Civil Code section 52.1, is a broadly-worded California civil rights statute first enacted to combat
