Reduction In Requested Hourly Rate and Denial of Multiplier Were No Abuses of Discretion. In Shank v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., Case No. G049844 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 14, 2015) (unpublished), Plaintiff won a sexual harassment jury verdict against an employer and employer’s trainer, to the tune of $391,000 in compensatory damages […]
Order Taxing Costs By Over Half Was No Abuse of Discretion, Either. In Berro v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B223515 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 22, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff—an ex-Los Angeles fire department captain—lost a FEHA case (mainly through a summary judgment motion), but the lower court refused to award Fire
Lower Court Properly Denied Plaintiff’s Fee Request. If you lose all of your claims (even in the civil rights area), you likely are not the prevailing party. The appealing plaintiff found that out in Arevalo v. City of Long Beach, Case No. B250345 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 10, 2014) (unpublished). There,
Plaintiff Did Succeed, With Efforts On Other Claims Interrelated. In State of Arizona v. Asarco, No. 11-17484 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2014) (en banc) (published), a Title VII plaintiff primarily alleging sexual harassment claims brought an action against an employer having more than 500 employees. The jury awarded plaintiff $1 in nominal compensatory
$503,450.02 Fee Award and $31,679.08 Costs Award Went Away For Now, Even Though Reversal As To Only One Defendant. Plaintiff won a FEHA-based lawsuit against both a school district and an individual in Norton v. San Bernardino City Unified School District, Case No. G049496 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 9, 2014) (unpublished). After
Plaintiff Requested Close to $1 Million in Fees (Inclusive of 3.5 Multiplier). Plaintiff sued a school district and two supervisors for FEHA and a host of ancillary discrimination claims. Along the way, even though an appellate court revived some claims, plaintiff had claims pared down or only partially prevailed—3 out of 11, for
. . . Unless Retainer Agreement Requires Otherwise. Hernandez v. Siegel, Case No. A139653 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 30, 2014) (published) decided, unless a client-attorney retainer agreement dictates otherwise, post-judgment interest on a fee award and routine costs generally are interests vested in the attorney, rather than the client. The appellate court
Settlement Involved ADA Compliance Relief, No Monetary Benefits to ADA Patrons. Wheelchair ramp at Minneapolis Federal Building. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. 2012. Library of Congress. Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 4:02-cv-05849-PJH (N.D. Cal.) is a long-running ADA class action brought against Taco Bell, with the case alleging scooter-bound and wheelchair-bound
FEHA Plaintiff Requested $243,916.50 In Fees For 560 Hours of Attorney Work. Message to Civil Rights Attorneys: Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate. Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 970 (2010), when it came out and still today, is an important case in the plaintiff FEHA recovery area. Chavez was central to
Trial Judge Did Not Resolve Attorney’s Lien Claim Brought by Estate of Another Deceased Plaintiffs’ Attorneys, So No Prejudice. Marcisz v. Ultrastar Cinemas, Case No. D063902 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 29, 2014) (unpublished) involved two sets of FEHA attorneys moving to recover fees after successfully prosecuting a sexual harassment for four plaintiffs.
