Trial Court Made Proper Allocation, and Chavez Was Dispositive Case Law. Defendants appealed a trial court’s award of $143,861.87 in attorney’s fees to a plaintiff winning $22,625 on sexual harassment, assault and battery claims after a bench trial, even though plaintiff lost other claims and plaintiff’s fees were three times more that the […]
Appellate Court Found Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion in Awarding Fee Award 600 Times the Damages Award. Government Code section 12965(b) is a special fee-shifting provision which especially allows attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to winning FEHA plaintiffs. Strict proportionality is not necessary between damages and fees awarded, with the
20% of Requested $549,885 Deemed Fair By Both Trial and Appellate Courts. Although strict proportionality of fees is not the governing standard for awards to winning civil rights plaintiffs, the lack of success and inflated fee requests are important “checks” which can result in a greatly reduced fees award. That is what
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) is the Fee-Shifting Statute. Interestingly enough, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) has a fee-shifting statute allowing district judges to assess fees/costs against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) if it does not prevail in an action, with the added wrinkle that the winning defendant must prove that EEOC’s action was
Fourth District, Division 2 Disagrees With Cummings. In the civil rights area, Cummings v. Benco Building Services, 11 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1388 (1992) is a California decision oft-cited for the proposition that both fees and costs cannot be awarded against a losing civil rights plaintiff unless the action is deemed to be frivolous, unreasonable,
Simply Saying Fees “Excessive” Was Not Enough. In Barnard v. Theobald, Case No. 11-16625 (9th Cir. July 1, 2013) (for publication), the Ninth Circuit affirmed an excessive police force jury verdict against defendants. However, it vacated a district judge’s decision to reduce requested attorney’s fees under the federal civil rights statute (42 U.S.C.
Denial of Fee Recovery Reversed and Remanded. On December 16, 2012, we posted about a “Case Under Review,” Higher Taste, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, where U.S. District Judge Settle (W.D. Wash.) denied attorney’s fees under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because he did not believe that plaintiff non-profit’s
No Apportionment Necessary Where Noninverse Condemnation Claim Relevant to Inverse Claim; No Statement of Decision Required Either. Code of Civil Procedure section 1036 provides that a trial court shall fix attorney's fees and costs expenses to a prevailing plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding. Section 1036 was the centerpiece of the fee ruling appealed
Matter Remanded to Demand Costs Under Routine Costs Statutes, Rather than Broader FEHA Costs-Shifting Provision. FEHA does have a broad fee-shifting/costs-shifting statute, even covering expert witness fees and generally tilted in favor of winning plaintiffs. Plaintiff won two FEHA counts through a special jury verdict, but defendant moved for a JNOV on the
$86,914.24 Fee/Costs Recovery Garnered By Risk Retention Group Goes POOF! Although the federal civil rights statute (15 U.S.C. § 1988) has a broad fee-shifting statute, it does not aid a winning plaintiff if preemption of a state law is not a “right” free from state law for purposes of the civil rights fee
