Cases: Civil Rights

Civil Rights, Lodestar, Multipliers: 4/3 DCA Affirms Majority Of $4.053 Million Civil Rights Fee Award To Prevailing Plaintiff, Remanding Solely For A Study Of Hourly Rates Submitted By Three Attorneys

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Case Has Interesting Discussions of Civil Rights Lodestar, Multipliers, Hourly Rate Review, and Pro Hac Vice Delayed Admission Principles.             Presiding Justice O’Leary authored Nachtrieb v. County of Orange, Case No. G060294 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 11, 2023) (unpublished), which is a must read for civil rights litigators when it comes to supporting and […]

Civil Rights: Class Action Counsel Awarded Over $400,000 In Attorney’s Fees After Settling Constitutional Challenges To Mississippi’s Sodomy Law

Cases: Civil Rights

Fifth Circuit Decision Demonstrates A Smart Move By Class Counsel And How District Judges Will Reduce Lodestar Requests For Clerical Work, Partial Success, And Work On Unsuccessful Motions.             In Doe v. Fitch, No. 22-60481 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023) (per curiam; unpublished), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was reviewing a district court’s award

Civil Rights: $13,943.84 In Costs Was A Negative Award Against A Plaintiff Whose FEHA Case Was Found To Be Frivolous In Nature

Cases: Civil Rights

Appellate Court Also Chided Plaintiffs’ Counsel For A Lack Of Civility.             In Gonzalez v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B317794 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 28, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a FEHA case after demurrer and summary judgment grants.  The lower court found the FEHA claims to be frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless, awarding

Civil Rights: Defendant Not Entitled To Recover Statutory Fees Where Plaintiff’s ADA Claim Was Dismissed For Lack Of Standing

Cases: Civil Rights

Fees Are Not Allowable Under ADA Fee Statute, But Rule 11 Was Available to Recoup Fees If The Defense Can Prove The Action Was Frivolous.             The Ninth Circuit, in Fernandez v. 23676-23726 Malibu Road, LLC, No. 22-55626 (9th Cir. July 26, 2023) (published), held that an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) plaintiff whose case

Civil Rights, Private Attorney General: On Remand From The California Supreme Court, Court Of Appeal Denies Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Party Under The Political Reform Act And Under A Separate Private Attorney General Theory

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff’s Suit Was Not Frivolous Under Political Reform Act, With Defendants Not Showing An Important Right/Significant Benefit Were Vindicated Under CCP § 1021.5.             In Travis v. Brand, Case No. B298104 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 19, 2023) (published), the 2/8 DCA had to consider whether prevailing defendants were entitled to attorney’s fees under the

Civil Rights: Where Qui Tam Plaintiff And Defendant Settle The Action With Each Side Bearing Their Own Fees, Quin Tam Plaintiff’s Counsel Cannot Bring Subsequent Action For Statutory Fees Under Government Code Section 12652

Cases: Civil Rights

Action Was Dismissed, With Options For Counsel Being To Intervene In The Qui Tam Action Or To Provide For A Fee Recovery Preservation In The Settlement.             In Berney Law Corp. v. ClubCorp Porter Valley Country Club, Inc., Case No. B313888 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 18, 2023) (unpublished), the trial and appellate courts faced

Civil Rights: $2,311,662.50 FEHA Disability Discrimination Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights

Compensatory Award Was $1,014,000.             As we have posted in the past, FEHA compensatory awards often produce ancillary substantial fee recoveries.  That was borne out in Thomas v. City of Los Angeles, Case Nos. B305051/B308622 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 25, 2023) (unpublished).             Plaintiff won a $1,014,000 FEHA disability discrimination award against L.A., with

Civil Rights: California Supreme Court Finds Political Reform Act’s Prevailing Party Fees/Costs Provision Is Asymmetrical In Favor Of Plaintiffs

Cases: Civil Rights

Defendants Only Obtain Fees If Plaintiff’s Suit Is Objectively Unreasonable From The Start Or Becomes So During Its Prosecution.             The California Supreme Court, in Travis v. Broad, Case No. S268480 (Cal. Supreme Court Jan. 30, 2023) (published), faced the situation where prevailing defendants in a Political Reform Act case were awarded discretionary attorney’s fees

Civil Rights, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $40,295 Civil Harassment Fee Award To Prevailing Party Affirmed, Although Amended Fee Order To Add Another Party Was Void Based On The Prior Fee Award Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Trial Judge Rejected Fee Request For Half Based On The Party-Client Agreement.             In Aaronoff v. Olson, Case No. B295388 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 24, 2023) (unpublished), prevailing party in a civil harassment proceeding (where the trial judge has discretion to award prevailing party fees per CCP § 527.6(a)) awarded $40,295 to the prevailing

Civil Rights: Under The California Voting Rights Act, “Cost Of Work Product” Includes Costs Incurred On Behalf Of Future Named Plaintiffs And A Contingency Attorney Advancing Costs On Behalf Of Client(s)

Cases: Civil Rights

Other Interpretations Would Subvert The Remedial Purpose Of The Reimbursement Provisions.             The California Voting Rights Act was passed by the state Legislature to address at-large elections tending to dilute the ability of minority groups to elect candidates (racial block voting), including provisions which allows a prospective plaintiff who gets an ordinance establishing district-based elections to

Scroll to Top