However, Plaintiff Entitled to Have Court Consider Expert Witness Fees On Remand, Because Fee Motion Preserved Issue. Amour v. Alexander, Case No. B235897 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 29, 2012) (unpublished) [BLOG NOTE–no, co-contributor Marc Alexander was not involved here at all] is a case that highlights the importance of Chavez v. City
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 In Williams v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B234100 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 8, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiff was hit with post-appeal SLAPP fees of over $40,000 when defendants successfully defended a SLAPP grant in a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: 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.
Instead, Injunctive or Declaratory Relief Usually Will Materially Alter the Parties’ Relationships. The United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous, per curiam summary decision (no merits briefing/no oral argument), reversed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial of attorney’s fees in a case where a plaintiff won injunctive relief (but not even nominal
Ninth Circuit Affirms § 1983 Defense Summary Judgments, But Does Not Find Plaintiff’s Claims Were Groundless, Without Foundation, Frivolous, or Unreasonable in Nature. 42 U.S.C. § 1988 has a tough standard for prevailing defendants to hurdle in order to gain attorney’s fees recovery against a losing plaintiff in a § 1983 civil rights
General Verdict Acquiescence By Defense Sealed Propriety of Fee Award. In our September 24, 2012 post, we discussed Alamo v. Practice Mgt. Information Corp., Case No. B230909 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 24, 2012), which was unpublished at the time of original issuance. The opinion affirmed a FEHA fee award to plaintiff as
Attorney Should Not Be Penalized for Civil Rights Plaintiff’s Choice To Go To Trial. As reported at Law Blog on October 12, 2012, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an interesting civil rights fee decision in Diaz v. Jiten Hotel Mgt., Inc., Case No. 11-2400 (1st Cir. Oct. 12, 2012).
Invited Error Doomed Defense Primary Argument on Appeal. In Alamo v. Practice Mgt. Information Corp., Case No. B230909 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 24, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiff prevailed on a complaint alleging California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) violations as well as a state law wrongful termination claim. Plaintiff recovered compensatory damages
In a recent order, U.S. District Judge Richard Dorr of the Western District of Missouri ordered American Disabilities Act “serial” plaintiff Connie Stevenson to pay 12 defendants attorney’s fees according to future proof based on her filing 12 groundless complaints against different businesses. District Judge Dorr found she did not have standing based
Federal and State Cases Require Consideration of “Pocketbook” Factor in FEHA Area. Defendant must have been feeling pretty good. It had won a couple of prior appeals brought by a losing FEHA plaintiff/job applicant who unsuccessfully sued for national original discrimination under Title VII. Defendant moved for the fees in winning the two
