$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with his assessment of the result in Heller v. Carmel Partners, Inc., Case No. B253512 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 4, 2015) (unpublished).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. […]
Use of Juror Declaration To Show “Close Case,” A Creative Approach, Was Not Accepted By Trial Court, But Appellate Court Did Not Rule It Out Under The Right Circumstances. This next case involved a creative attempt to use a juror affidavit to negate the proposition that a FEHA case was frivolous, unreasonable or
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 In Shank v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., Case No. G049844 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 14, 2015) (unpublished), Plaintiff won a sexual harassment jury verdict against an employer and employer’s trainer, to the tune of $391,000 in compensatory damages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 In Berro v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B223515 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 22, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff—an ex-Los Angeles fire department captain—lost a FEHA case (mainly through a summary judgment motion), but the lower court refused to award Fire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appealing plaintiff found that out in Arevalo v. City of Long Beach, Case No. B250345 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 10, 2014) (unpublished).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individual in Norton v. San Bernardino City Unified School District, Case No. G049496 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 9, 2014) (unpublished).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
