Cases: Civil Rights

Civil Rights, Costs: Court Costs Are Not Automatic Against Losing FEHA Plaintiff, With Costs Only Justified Where Commencement/Prosecution Of Lawsuit Was Without Objective Basis/Frivolous/Unreasonable

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

  California Supreme Court Treats Attorney’s Fees And Costs Alike With Regard To Losing FEHA Plaintiffs.     Our California Supreme Court, in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., Case No. S213100 (Cal. Supreme Ct. May 4, 2015) (published), has decided that losing plaintiffs in FEHA cases should be treated alike with respect to a […]

Civil Rights, Substantiation: Attorney Billings To County Client Are Privileged Communications Exempt From Disclosure Under California Public Records Act Exemption

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Ruling May Have Implications On Substantiation Submitted In Support Of Fee Petitions In California.      In County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (ACLU), Case No. B257230 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 13, 2015) (published), the ACLU sought law firm billing records (mainly invoices) sent by counsel to Los Angeles County

Civil Rights: Ninth Circuit Amends But Denies Rehearing In C.W. v. Capistrano Unified School District Case

Cases: Civil Rights

  No Material Modifications in Amended Opinion.      On March 6, 2015, we posted on C.W. v. Capistrano Unified School District, No. 12-57315 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2015) (published), which dealt with an attorney’s fees award in favor of school district and against plaintiff under various civil rights-oriented schemes, namely, IDEA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and

­­­Civil Rights: $713,487 In Fees Awarded To Civil Rights Attorneys Successfully Challenging Los Angeles Ordinance Targeting Homeless Sleeping In Cars

Cases: Civil Rights

  Some Reductions In Requested Fees Made By U.S. District Judg­e.      In Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2014), the Ninth Circuit invalidated, on constitutional grounds, a Los Angeles ordinance prohibiting use of cars as sleeping quarters, which the appeals court found was wrongfully targeted at the homeless.     

Civil Rights, Discovery, Prevailing Party: Disabled Plaintiff Dismissing Suit, Where Defendant Eliminated Architectural Barrier After Filing Suit, Was Properly Not Exposed To Fee Recovery Under California Disabled Persons Act Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Prevailing Party

  No One Prevailed in This Case, Both Trial and Appellate Courts Agreed, Under The Facts—But Prior Discovery Sanctions Award Did Survive.      The California Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, § 54 et seq.) [DPA] does have a reciprocal fee-shifting provision in favor of a “prevailing party.” (Unlike the American with Disabilities Act [ADA], which

Civil Rights: Losing ADA Plaintiff’s Suit Was Not Frivolous Such That District Court’s Fee Denial Was Correct

Cases: Civil Rights

  Plaintiff’s Case Resulted in Published Decision Clarifying “Equivalent Facilitation” Issue Which Had A Prior Split Result Between Two District Courts.      Alice Roosevelt Longworth and Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., with men in wheelchairs.  1927.  Library of Congress.      Plaintiff, a disabled person using a wheelchair, sued defendant—running a retail clothing store “House of Flava”—under Title

Civil Rights: $94,602.34 Fee Award And $2,058.21 Cost Award Based On District Court Conclusion Of Frivolity/Improper Purpose Under Various Disability Civil Rights Statute Tossed Out

Cases: Civil Rights

  Some Aspects Affirmed But Remanded, Some Reversed Outright, And Appellate Fee Issue Remanded To Commissioner To Allocate.      C.W. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., No. 12-57315 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2015) (published) is an interesting case involving a school district prevailing defendant in a disabled child lawsuit, involving claims under the Individuals with Disabilities

Civil Rights: Lower Court’s Denial Of Attorney’s Fees Altogether Under Labor Code Section 1194 Was Erroneous

Cases: Civil Rights

  $387,750 In Fees Requested, With Appellate Court Determining That Some Reasonable Amount Should Be Awarded.      Co-contributor Marc calls this next case “shock, countershock, equilibrium.” Co-contributor Mike agrees with his assessment of the result in Heller v. Carmel Partners, Inc., Case No. B253512 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 4, 2015) (unpublished).           Commodore W.H.

Scroll to Top