Lower Court Discounted Lodestar And Awarded No Multiplier; CCP § 1021.5 Public Importance Analysis Not Required Under FEHA Fee Awards. A FEHA prevailing plaintiff has a strong basis to reap fee recovery under Government Code section 12965(b); however, the trial judge frequently does discount the lodestar and multiplier request, as happened in Lafleur […]
Out-of-Town Counsel Use/High Hourly Rates And Positive Multiplier Enhancement Dominate Discussion In Lengthy Unpublished Decision From Riverside DCA. Although this case should be of interest to civil rights practitioners on the merits (discussing various evidentiary and instructional error issues), Ruelas v. Harper, Case No. E051961 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 6, 2015) (unpublished)
Painter v. Francis Realty, Inc., Case No. C078106 (3d Dist. Oct. 6, 2015) (Unpublished)—Allocation. After reversing the fee award and remanding to see if apportionment was required between tort and contract claims under Civil Code section 1717 (with only contract claims compensable under section 1717), the trial judge determined the tort and contract
Case Is A Primer On How To Satisfy Lodestar Factor And Fight An Award Reduced By A District Judge, Whether In CAFRA Or Other Cases. In U.S.A. v. Moser, No. 13-55266 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2015) (published), the Ninth Circuit, in a majority decision by Circuit Judge Hurwitz and a concurrence by Circuit
Chang v. Chang, Case No. G049309 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2015) (Unpublished; Ikola, J.).—Probate. In this and a companion appeal, the appellate court cut some surcharges to the trustee of about $345,000. Because of this companion ruling, the appellate court sent back a $187,900 fee award against trustee and in favor
District’s Settlement Offer, When Viewed Pragmatically, Gave Parents Substantial Justification To Reject It As Compared To The Ultimate Relief. For those of you practicing or interested in the area governed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), this next case is must reading, especially given the lengthy discussion of fee recovery under
Implications On Fee Motions Provide First Ground Underlying Request. On April 19, 2015, we posted on County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (ACLU), 235 Cal.App.4th 1154 (2015), which held that attorney billing records were privileged and immune from discovery under a Government Code exemption. We did observe that this would
However, Appeals Court Decided That Longer Statute Of Limitations Applied To Attorney’s Fees Request As An Independent Claim Under IDEA. In the end, parents likely were sorely disappointed over the reversal of an attorney’s fees award for their Asperger’s Syndrome-suffering son under circumstances where he was entitled to the preparation of an Independent
Costs On Allocable Non-FEHA Claims Only Allowable To Defendants Outside Of Williams Standard. In Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc., Case No. B246841 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 17, 2015) (published), prevailing defendant in a FEHA case was awarded $4,994.98 in routine costs in a case involving a FEHA claims and other non-FEHA claims
However, Striking Plaintiff’s Costs Had To Be Reconsidered Under Williams. Actually, Myres v. San Francisco Housing Authority, Case No. A141107 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 20, 2015) (unpublished) may be more interesting for its decision on the costs issue versus the fee issue. On the fee issue, plaintiff did obtain about a
