Cases: Civil Rights

  Key Difference Was Stipulated Injunction Versus Stipulated Dismissal.      In this category before, we have seen cases where disabled plaintiffs were denied fee award requests because they failed to make a prelitigation demand. Where there is a stipulated dismissal, a prelitigation demand is a necessity under the catalyst theory for purposes of a fee

  Fee Petitioner Shows How a Successful Fee Request Should Be Structured.      In Jochimsen v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B223518 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff narrowed an excessive police force case down to one civil rights claim, won a difficult jury verdict of $35,000, and then won attorney’s

  Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in Divided Ruling, Felt Bound by Buckhannon, With Interesting Dissents on the Merits and on Jurisprudential Thinking.      The federal civil rights statute has a pro-plaintiff fee shifting provision in 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep’t of

  Justice Kagan Delivers Unanimous Opinion For The Court.      In Fox v. Vice, Case No. 10-114 (U.S. June 6, 2011), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decided that a “but-for” standard applies when determining whether a prevailing defendant should recover attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in a plaintiff’s suit involving both frivolous and

  ADA Frivolousness Was Only Fee Basis, Which Was Not Established.      Handicapped plaintiff in Pike v. Fillmore & Western Railway, Inc., Case No. B225578 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 17, 2011) (unpublished) dodged a fee exposure bullet after not prevailing in a lawsuit brought under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons