Cases: Civil Rights

Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court’s Denial of Fees to Settling Plaintiff.      In La Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Case No. 08-56564 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2010) (for publication), plaintiff reached a settlement agreement with defendants over the enforcement of restrictions on day laborers soliciting work on public

  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

  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