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 Actually, Myres v. San Francisco Housing Authority, Case No. A141107 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 20, 2015) (unpublished) may be more interesting for its decision on the costs issue versus the fee issue.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
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
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
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
Case Law Did Not Clearly Show Claims Were Without Foundation. In Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California, Nos. 12-56520 et al. (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2015) (published), a disabled plaintiff lost a summary judgment on certain American with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims. The district judge then granted the defense, as prevailing
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.
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
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
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
