Los Angeles and Orange County Fee Rates Not Seen As That Divergent in Eyes of Santa Ana Appellate Panel. In Radwan v. Andaluz Bakery and Restaurant, Case No. G047180 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 7, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff successfully sued a bakery/restaurant and other defendants for sexual harassment following a day bench trial. […]
We Link the Settlement Agreement Because It Has Interesting Provisions. As reported in the January 26, 2014 edition of The Orange County Register, City of Anaheim—after spending more than $1.26 million in fees—decided to settle a challenge over minority voting rights in a way that allows voters to consider a charter amendment potentially altering
Civil Rights FEHA: Chiang v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B238948 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 15, 2014) (Unpublished). County won summary judgment but appealed the lower court’s refusal to award it requested attorney’s fees of $324,098.80 as the prevailing party. The appellate court affirmed the conclusion that fees are not guided
No Statement of Decision Required, and Not Requested—No Fee Award Error. This one has quite a lot of permutations for everyone to consider. On the merits, in a first impression case, the appellate held that a defective special verdict is reviewed under a harmless error analysis. However, it also has some nice themes
Paralegal Fee Award Was Remanded Based on Consideration of Hearsay Evidence; 10% Lodestar Reduction for Inflated Hours Was No Abuse of Discretion. Plaintiff won a gender discrimination claim against UPS, after losing other claims, under California’s state FEHA statute, which has a pro-plaintiff fee shifting claim. Plaintiff then requested FEHA claims in the
Ninth Circuit Did Say That Fee Award Exposure to Orange County District Attorney T-Rack Might Need To Be Reassessed. Vasquez v. Rackauckas, Case No. 11-55795 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2013) (published) is an interesting civil rights case in which an anti-gang injunction under California’s general public nuisance statutes was successfully challenged by four
1.33 Multiplier Was Justified. Plaintiff in Pena v. Central Freight Lines, Case Nos. A134753/A138014 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 4, 2013) (unpublished) won $470,000 in economic/noneconomic damages after a bench trial, with the lower court subsequently awarding $431,884.25 in fees under the FEHA fee-shifting statute–including a 1.33 multiplier, despite plaintiff requesting fees of
Court Rejects Needless Markup: 1.1 Multiplier Used, But Rejected $1,623,087 Lodestar/2.0 Multiplier Fees Request. In civil rights cases, winning plaintiffs have liberally-oriented fee shifting statutes in play which can result in exponential fee awards as compared to fairly modest damages recoveries–that is how the statutory schemes at both federal and state levels operate.
Plaintiff’s Appeal of the 80% Cut Denied Earlier; Defendant’s Appeal for a Further- Still Reduction Rejected. Above: Haircut. Japanese army. c1905. Library of Congress. Henderson v. Carter, Case No. B243220 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 11, 2013) (unpublished) is a follow-up to a prior unsuccessful appeal by a winning civil rights plaintiff
District Judge Must Explain Cuts With Specificity, Showing Math With Transparency And Not Capping Based on Compensatory Damages Amount. Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, Case No. 11-56594 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2013) (for publication) is must reading for civil rights practitioners filling fee petitions. However, it also has valuable lessons for attorneys involved
