$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
Reductions Made for Excessive Hourly Rates, Reconstructed Time Records, and Vague Time Entries. In Lehr v. City of Sacramento, Case No. 2:07-cv-01565-MCE-GGH (E.D.Cal. Mar. 22, 2013 Memorandum and Order Partially Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees/Costs), Chief U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the Eastern District of California ruled on a $1,805,000
Multipliers Also Correctly Denied. After a decades long FEHA litigation involving multiple appeals and four litigation phases, partially winning plaintiff in Fotheringham v. Avery Dennison Corp., Case No. B238282 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 13, 2013) (unpublished) must have felt dismayed when the lower court awarded her only $165,781 in fees (out of
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 A134143/A134941 (Feb. 11, 2013) (unpublished), he commenced a lawsuit contesting a San Francisco ordinance assessing penalties for false burglar/fire
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
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
No one can dispute under existing California law that a losing FEHA plaintiff can attempt to deflect a costs award by showing hardship–inability to pay. (Knight v. Hayward Unified School Dist., 132 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 (2005).) However, the losing plaintiff got hit with a $30,000 costs award in Johnson v. Pacific International
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),
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
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
