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 June 5, 2014) (unpublished) was a losing defense appeal of a second lower court award of an additional $224,675.71 in fees to a winning
Plaintiff Wanted $93,421.50 in Fees and $7,609.19 in Costs. Arguing that a lower court erred in fixing the amount of a fee award is a tough proposition given that a deferential abuse of discretion review standard applies. Plaintiff learned that all too well in Nickel v. ARB, Inc., Case No. G048500 (4th Dist., Div.
Remanded To Decide If Multiplier Appropriate Upon Reversal of State Claim Giving Rise To Positive Enhancement. The Ninth Circuit in Chaudhry v. Interfaith Communities United For Justice and Peace, Case No. 11-55820 (9th Cir. May 19, 2014) (published) is an interesting decision involving federal civil rights/attendant state law (CA Civil Code section 52.1)
2/5 Does So in Unpublished Decision. In Madenlian v. State of California, Case No. B233898 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 13, 2014) (unpublished), the 2/5 DCA agreed with its colleagues on 2/8 DCA that expert witness fees cannot be awarded to a prevailing FEHA defendant unless the discrimination action was frivolous, unreasonable, without
E.D. Cal. Federal Magistrate Judge Applied 40% Downward Adjustment Based on Limited Success. Hall v City of Fairfield, Case No. 2:10-cv-0508 DAD (E.D. Cal. Doc. No. 227 Mar. 31, 2014 [order granting attorney’s fees]) is a tutorial on principles governing award of attorney’s fees in the civil rights area under 42 U.S.C. §
Matter Remanded for Re-fixing of Fees Award. Plaintiff winning a California Family Rights Act, some FEHA, and two common law claims—obtaining a jury verdict of $287,400–moved to recover about $95,000 in routine costs and $1,675,627.50 in fees enhanced by a 2.0 positive multiplier for well over $3 million in requested fees. The trial
Ninth Circuit Sides With Consonant Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuit Opinions on the Issue. The Ninth Circuit in Family PAC v. Ferguson, Case No. 12-35640 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2014) (published) dealt with the first impression issue for the Court of whether costs under F.Rule App. Proc. 39 did or did not
DCA Also Addressed Some Special Costs Items in the Process; Sustained Cost Award Assessed Against Counsel When Counsel Did Not Appeal. Losing plaintiff in a FEHA case appealed after the lower court ordered that $34,906.12 in routine costs be paid by her (out of a requested $54,667.39). Her challenges to the award
Civil Rights Plaintiffs, Beware, When You Lose a Lot of Rulings Along the Way, Having to Rely on Isolated Incidents Rather Than a Pattern of Conduct—Fees to the Other Side May Follow. Given that the fee-shifting statute is decidedly pro-plaintiff, a FEHA plaintiff was likely stunned when she was hit with a $206,368.50
