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 Marcisz v. Ultrastar Cinemas, Case No. D063902 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 29, 2014) (unpublished) involved two sets of FEHA attorneys moving to recover fees after successfully prosecuting a sexual harassment for four plaintiffs.
Whistleblower Claim Alone Does Not Justify CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery. In Hager v. County of Los Angeles, Case Nos. B238277/B239897 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 5, 2014) (unpublished) (opn. after rehearing), plaintiff whistleblower obtained $2 million in economic damages and $2.5 million in non-economic damages from a jury verdict. On appeal, the public
Neither CCP § 1021.5 Nor 42 U.S.C. § 1988 Supported Fee Award. In Rivera v. County of Riverside, Case No. E055956 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 1, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained mandate for an administrative hearing based on her termination by the County of Riverside under unusual factual circumstances, eventually leading to a
30% Reduction of Fee and Costs Request Deemed Reasonable. In Villafana v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B246866 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 30, 2014) (unpublished), civil rights plaintiff bringing FEHA/federal civil rights/California Family Rights Act/public policy violation claims lost a summary judgment to L.A. County based on the statute of limitations
District Judge Surveys Law on Awarding Fees to Winning Civil Rights Plaintiff Really Prevailing Under State Pendent Claims. Willis v. City of Fresno, Case No. 1:09-CV-01766-BAM (E.D. Cal., Doc. No. 316 7/17/14) is an interesting decision granting attorney’s fees and costs to counsel representing prevailing civil rights plaintiffs, although the plaintiffs got $1
Case Was Unreasonable/Without Foundation, and Trial Court Lowered Lodestar One Half Based on Plaintiff’s Ability to Pay. FEHA plaintiff lost on a summary judgment motion, with the lower court finding that the case was unreasonable and without foundation from inception based on proof that there was objective basis for what the governmental entity
Extraordinary Circumstances Justified Noncompliance With Deadlines, And Client/Attorney Agreement On How To Divide Statutory Fee Awards Did Not Violate Any Ethical Prohibitions. Blythe v. County of Riverside, Case No. E055186 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 16, 2014) (unpublished) is a wild FEHA fee/costs award case encompassing deadline, standing, and retainer agreement divisions of
Jury Verdict Was $50,000; District Court Awarded $579,400 in Fees Out of Requested $748,522.50. When you are challenging an attorney’s fees award as too high in a civil case, you are running up a steep hill in order to surmount the deferential abuse of discretion review standard. Avila v. LAPD, Case No. 12-55931
FEHA Plaintiff’s Counsel Offered 5% Duplication Discount and Trial Court Reduced Another 60% From Requested Amounts—Nothing More Needed. Vargas v. Martinez-Senftner Law Firm, P.C., Case No. C069218 (3d Dist. June 5, 2014) (unpublished) was a losing defense appeal of a second lower court award of an additional $224,675.71 in fees to a winning
