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 Handicapped plaintiff in Pike v. Fillmore & Western Railway, Inc., Case No. B225578 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 17, 2011) (unpublished) dodged a fee exposure bullet after not prevailing in a lawsuit brought under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons
Ninth Circuit So Held in Pony. A recent memorandum decision in a Ninth Circuit case reminds all of you civil rights practitioner of an important caveat: clients own the rights to fees under federal civil rights cases such that they cannot be assigned to their attorneys. However, attorney’s lien rights might lead to
Trial Court Had Discretion to Reduce Lodestar, Parsing Out Unsuccessful Claim Fee Work. This next case describes the discretion allowed trial courts in calculating the lodestar as well as a nice job by the defense in mitigating fee exposure by providing the trial court with a basis for awarding fees only on successful
Published Decision Affirms Lower Court Denial of Fees. In Morrison v. Vineyard Creek, Case No. A127476 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 29, 2011) (certified for publication), plaintiff resolved a retaliatory eviction/FEHA dispute via settlement with defendants by which no wrongdoing was admitted but agreed that plaintiff could operate a family child care home
Sections 52 and 54.3 Held to Create Implied Exception to Section 55. The appellate court in Turner v. Assn. of American Medical Colleges, Case No. A126742 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 24, 2011) (certified for publication) had to consider dueling fee-shifting provisions under the Unruh Civil Rights Act: sections 52 and 54.3 only allowing
. . . And Gets Remand For More Retrial and Appellate Fees! Although this case took a very circuitous appellate route (through two appeals), tenacity sometimes pays off. It did in this one, especially where there was a mandatory FEHA fee-shifting provision in favor of the prevailing plaintiff. Fotheringham v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
Ninth Circuit Reverses and Remands To Craft Fee Recovery Only for anti-SLAPP Work. In Fox v. Vice, No. 10-114 (U.S. Sup. Ct., cert. granted, 131 S. Ct. 505 [Nov. 1, 2010]), the United States Supreme Court will consider whether attorney’s fees can be awarded for intertwined work when the civil rights claims are determined
Government Code Section 12989.2 Prohibition Trumped Award Under § 1028.5. In Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Mayr, Case No. H034935 (6th Dist. Feb. 9, 2011) (certified for publication), defendants won against Department of Fair Employment and Hosuing (DFEH) in a housing discrimination action, with the lower court awarding defendants attorney’s fees aggregating
Chief Judge Kozinski, on behalf of Ninth Circuit, Clarifies IDEA Fee Recovery Provision As to Defendants. R.P. v. Prescott Unified School Dist., Case Nos. 09-15651/09-16786 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2011) (for publication) involved a situation where a district court affirmed an ALJ’s determinations in a parent-commenced suit on behalf of a child claiming child
Majority Acknowledges Tough Burden Resulting to Defense Under Its “But For” Documentation Test, Drawing a Sharp Dissent from Circuit Judge Bybee. The next Ninth Circuit decision is an interesting one for defendants seeking fees in civil rights cases. It involves a situation where there were multiple claims, some based on civil rights, some on
