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
Trial Judge Also Properly Awarded $15,000 Supplemental Fees For Posttrial Work. For those of you not practicing in the employment/FEHA area, civil rights plaintiffs in disability/harassment/failure to accommodate cases are entitled to recovery of attorney’s fees under a pro-plaintiff statutory fee-shifting provision to be construed liberally to allow plaintiff full compensation for prevailing in
Lack of Proof/Causation, And Some Crazy Assertions, Cemented Appellate Court’s Agreement With Trial Court’s Ruling. Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace practices his favorite hobby, boomerang throwing. July 13, 1939. Library of Congress. Baker v. Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Case No. B270973 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 25, 2017) (unpublished)
Plaintiff Did Not Attempt To Replead Certain Claims In Amended Complaint And Defense Failure On CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Motion May Have Salted Away The Result. “Pocketbook”, a concern in many civil rights fee-shifting cases, may be helped by subsequent efforts of a civil rights plaintiff and unsuccessful sanctions efforts by the defense. Figueroa-Manjung
District Judge Erred In Denying Any Fees Based On Incorrect Civil Rights Fee-Shifting Analysis. In Miller v. City of Portland, No. 14-35783 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2017) (published), a civil rights plaintiff accepted a defense Rule 68 offer for $1,000 with reasonable attorney’s fees to be determined by the district court. After plaintiff moved
Decision Held Section 998 Cost-Shifting Prevailed Over FEHA/POBRA Limitations. On July 28, 2017, we posted on Sviridov v. City of San Diego, Case No. D069785 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 28, 2017 unpublished). We now can report that this opinion was certified for publication on August 15, 2017. It decided that CCP § 998 cost
Policies Of Both FEHA Cost Shifting And 998 Cost Shifting To Be Considered By Trial Courts, But 998 Resolution Policies Prevailed In This One. Sviridov v. City of San Diego, Case No. D069785 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 28, 2017) (unpublished) is an interesting case where a terminated police officer failed to beat several
Plaintiff Sought $36,022, But Was Only Awarded $4,380 In Costs And Fees. Even in the civil rights areas, looks like a lot of cases come down to attorney’s fee rulings. Turner v. Anand, Case No. D070433 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 13, 2017) (unpublished) illustrates this well. There, plaintiff sued defendant in state
Decision Considers Fee Shifting Under Education Code Section 44944(f)(2). As discussed in our February 23, 2017 post, fee shifting under Education Code section 44944(f)(2) was considered in Walent v. Commission on Professional Competenece of the LAUSD. Although not published at the time of its filing on February 21, we can now report that
Panoply Of Issues Faced In This Decision. In Lemaire v. Covenant Care California, LLC, Case No. B266493 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 27, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a complaint based on wrongful death, elder abuse, and “patients’ rights” violations under Health and Safety Code section 1430(b) for treatment of her mother in a
