Cases: Civil Rights

Civil Rights/Reasonableness Of Fees: Ninth Circuit Reverses $473,138.24 Fee Award To Civil Rights Winners In Settlement Where $500,000 Was Stipulated Damages Figure

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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

Civil Rights: Trial Court’s $143,861.87 Fee Award To Winning Civil Rights Plaintiff Sustained Even Though She Won Damages Of $22,625

Cases: Civil Rights

  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

Civil Rights/Reasonableness Of Fees: FEHA Winning $1 In Damages Won $349,313.74 In Attorney’s Fees And $11,952.94 Under FEHA Fee-Shifting Statute

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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

Civil Rights/Reasonableness Of Fees: $109,977 Fee Award To Civil Rights Plaintiff Winning About $18,000 Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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

Civil Rights: EEOC Has To Pay $4,694,442.14 Fee/Expenses/Costs Award To Defendant’s Attorneys Based On District Court’s Determination That Most Of The Claims Were Unreasonable/Groundless

Cases: Civil Rights

  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

Civil Rights/Costs: Routine Costs, Not Including Attorney’s Fees Or Expert Witness Fees, Can Be Awarded Without Showing Loser’s Case Was Frivolous, Unreasonableness, Or Groundless

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

  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,

Reasonableness Of Fees: 40% Vaguely Explained Reduction Did Not Pass Muster Before Ninth Circuit In Civil Rights Case

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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.

Civil Rights: Non-Profit Plaintiff Prevailing On Preliminary Injunction Which Materially Altered Relationships Entitled To Fee Recovery Unless Exceptional Circumstances Show Otherwise

Cases: Civil Rights

  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

Eminent Domain/Civil Rights: Court Properly Awarded $728,015.50 In Attorney’s Fees When Plaintiffs Recovered In Inverse Condemnation But Lost Civil Rights Claim

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Eminent Domain

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

Civil Rights/Costs/POOF!: $567,220.57 FEHA Award And $84,864.47 Costs Award Go POOF! When FEHA Counts Found Jurisdictionally Barred

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: POOF!

  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

Scroll to Top