Cases: Civil Rights

Civil Rights/Retainer Agreements: Section 1988 Fee Recovery Right Cannot Be Assigned By Litigant/Client To Attorney

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  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 […]

Civil Rights/Lodestar/Allocation: Appellate Court Affirms Decision To Award $1,000 Winning Plaintiffs Fees Of $60,400 Out Of A Requested $566,510

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar

  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

Landlord/Tenant & Civil Rights: Plaintiff Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Retaliatory Eviction Or FEHA Fee Shifting Provisions

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

  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

Civil Rights: Prevailing Defendant Over Claims Under Civil Code Sections 52 And 54.3 Not Entitled To Fee-Shifting Recovery Under Section 55

Cases: Civil Rights

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

Civil Rights/Allocation: Nonfrivolous Federal Civil Right Claim Fees Awarded As Part Of Anti-SLAPP Fee Recovery Would Not Withstand Appellate Scrutiny

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: SLAPP

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

Civil Rights: Winning Defendants Could Not Recoup Attorney’s Fees Against DFEH Under CCP § 1028.5 Sanctions Statute

Cases: Civil Rights

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

Civil Rights: Ninth Circuit, In Sharply Divided Opinion, Finds That Pro-Rata Allocation Of Fees Between Frivolous And Nonfrivolous Claims Is Impermissible

Cases: Civil Rights

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

Civil Rights/Sanctions: Federal Court of Appeals Provides Guidance on When Fees Should Be Awarded Against Losing Civil Rights Plaintiffs

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Sanctions

  First Circuit Finds Excluded Trial Evidence Could Be Used to Determine Reasonableness of Suit, Reversing Fee Award; Reviewing Court Also Scaled Down Sanctions Against Plaintiffs’ Attorney.       In a civil rights political discrimination case, a district judge granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law after a 15 day trial, in

Scroll to Top