Cases: Civil Rights

Civil Rights/Private Attorney General: Litigant Obtaining Voluntary Changes By San Francisco In Connection With False Alarm Ordinance Properly Denied 1021.5 And Section 1988 Fee Recovery

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Unreasonable Post-Litigation Failure to Settle and Absence of Court-Ordered Change Negated Fee Entitlement Bases.       After petitioner lost an administrative hearing on the issue in Wineberg v. City & County of San Francisco, Case Nos. A134143/A134941 (Feb. 11, 2013) (unpublished), he commenced a lawsuit contesting a San Francisco ordinance assessing penalties for false burglar/fire […]

Civil Rights: Civil Rights Plaintiff Winning $1 In Nominal Damages And $200,000 In Punitive Damages On First Amendment Claim Gets Another Shot At Fee Recovery When Judge Awarded $500,000 Out Of Requested $3.2 Million And $100,000 Out Of Requested $900,000

Cases: Civil Rights

  C – :  “Show Us Your Work,” Ninth Circuit Tells Fee-Deciding District Judges.      The Ninth Circuit in Padgett v. Loventhal, Case No. 10-16533 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2013) (published) reversed a $500,000 fee award (out of a requested $3.2 million) and $100,000 cost award (out of a requested $900,000) after one civil rights

Civil Rights: Attorney’s Fees Recoverable In Mixed Motive FEHA Discrimination Cases Even If Employer Proves It Would Have Made The Same Employee Unfriendly Decision

Cases: Civil Rights

       Harris v. City of Santa Monica, Case No. S181004 (Cal. Supreme Court Feb. 7, 2013) (published) is must reading for FEHA practitioners involved in a mixed motive discriminatory case. It adopts a “substantial motivating” factor test for termination, but holds that an employer proving the same decision would have been made absent such

Civil Rights: $550,000 Fee Recovery In Civil Code Section 51.7 Case Involving $125,000 In Damages Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights

  After All, Trial Court Did Cut Down $1.13 Million Lodestar Request and Multiplier Enhancement Request.      Civil Code section 51.7 provides that Californians have a right to be free from any violence or intimidation by threat of violence committed against their persons because of specific characteristics, including sexual harassment. Under Civil Code section 52(b)(2),

Cases Under Review/Civil Rights: California Supreme Court Rules That Unruh Act Prevailing Party Fee Recovery Is Bilateral And Not Preempted By ADA Federal Fee Recovery Restrictions

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Civil Rights

  Case Pitted Unruh Act State Provisions Against Federal ADA Fee-Shifting Provisions–State’s Rights Prevailed On This One.      Jankey v. Lee, Case No. S180890 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Dec. 17, 2012) (published) is a case pitting a bilateral attorney’s fees provision to prevailing parties under the state Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 55) against a federal

Cases Under Review/Civil Rights: Washington District Court Decision Denying Civil Rights Fees To Nonprofit Organization Contesting Municipal Regulation Near Zoo Might Get Reversed

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Civil Rights

  At Least One Circuit Judge Thinks Denial Was Erroneous.      In Higher Taste v. City of Tacoma, Case No. C10-5252BHS (W.D. Wash. Doc. 54 filed 11/22/11), U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle denied a nonprofit plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees under the civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)) after nonprofit obtained a preliminary

Civil Rights/SLAPP: Winning Post-Appeal Defendants Properly Awarded SLAPP Fees Against Plaintiff In Civil Rights Case

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: SLAPP

  Appellate Court Refused to Inject Civil Rights Fee “Frivolity” Standards Into SLAPP Mandatory Fee Recovery Statute.      In Williams v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B234100 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 8, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiff was hit with post-appeal SLAPP fees of over $40,000 when defendants successfully defended a SLAPP grant in a

Civil Rights: Fee Guidelines For EAJA

Cases: Civil Rights

Civil Rights: Ninth Circuit Guidelines For Fee Awards Under EAJA      The Ninth Circuit’s “Attorney Fees and Recoverable Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA)” includes interesting guidelines for practitioners seeking fees under EAJA.      It establishes that eligible parties encompass an individual client having a net worth under $2 million. (28 U.S.C.

Scroll to Top