Second District, Division 2 Strikes Fee Award. Here is a reminder that fee entitlement is a key liminal concern for review of any attorney’s fees award. The failure to plead a claim allowing for fee recovery can and often will be fatal to the ability to recoup substantial attorney’s fees. The next case is […]
Ninth Circuit Remands $136,537.83 Fee Award After Reversing and Granting Plaintiff More Relief. Here is a reverse POOF! Plaintiff in Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case Nos. 08-55867 et al. (9th Cir. July 26, 2010, amended Sept. 22, 2010) (for publication) won one claim in an American with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Main Controversy Surrounded Hourly Rates and Reasonableness of Fee Request. The great thing about blogging is that we actually do get reader participation, and participation by reader attorneys that have won significant fee awards. Here is a recent award to a student under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a federal fee-shifting
Defendant Did Not Meet Christiansburg Standard for Recovery of Fees. In the civil rights area, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) is by no means an equal fee-shifting provision. It favors winning plaintiffs. Conversely, a winning defendant must prove the plaintiff’s civil rights action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation in order to be entitled
FEHA-Based Fees Not Allowable to Other Defendants. In our July 30, 2010 post, we reviewed Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc., Case No. B215179 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 30, 2010) (certified for partial publication), where a fee award went POOF! upon reversal of a demurrer sustained in favor of certain defendants. However, apparently other
The Math: Total Bill = $783K, Attorney’s Fees = $674K, Experts = $108K, Depositions and Transcripts = $40K, Fee Recovery = $0. Lydia Lopez, a former Sheriff’s Department Clerk, lost a harassment suit against the County of Stanislaus. Merrill Balassone reports in the Sacramento Bee that Ms. Lopez’ attorney Jeffery Hubbins claims the County
Second District, Division 1 Follows Suit With Division 8—and Relative to the Same Plaintiff. On July 1, 2010, we examined Mundy v. Neal, where the Second District, Division 8—in an opinion authored by Justice Ashmann-Gerst—denied fees to a plaintiff claiming fees as a “catalyst” under Civil Code section 55. Well, now Division 1
Lack of Prelitigation Demand for Corrective Action Was Damning. Here is one for practitioners that either prosecute or defend disability accommodation claims, which frequently revolve around the attorney’s fees that can be recouped by their attorneys. Attorneys did not do so well in this case. In Mundy v. Neal, Case No. B219711
Interaction of Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Also Explored. This next case is a very scholarly review of the standards governing an award of expert witnesses fees as costs to a winning defendant in a FEHA action. It is Holman v. Altana Pharma US, Inc., Case Nos. A122783/A124451 (1st Dist., Div. 5
Fourth District, Division 2 Addresses FEHA Fee Shifting Issues. An LDS-affiliated plaintiff recovered a jury verdict from an employer based on religious discrimination, but it was unclear that she prevailed under her FEHA claim, although she did recover under Labor Code section 218.5 for unpaid commissions (a claim carrying a statutory fee-shifting clause). Although
