Cases: Civil Rights

ADA: Reversal Of Lawsuit Based On Lack Of Standing Requires Vacating Of Monetary Sanctions

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court’s Sanctions Order.      In an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) case, a district judge dismissed a lawsuit based on plaintiff’s lack of standing and imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel for bringing a frivolous case. The Ninth Circuit reversed the standing determination, which also meant that the sanctions […]

FEHA: $1,059,350.60 Fee Award, Based on 1.5 Multiplier, Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Use of Multiplier Appropriate Even Where Substantial Punitive Damages Also Were Awarded.      Bimbo Bakeries, known for selling such brands of Orowheat and Entemann’s, suffered an adverse jury verdict based on plaintiff’s complaint for wrongful termination, gender and pregnancy discrimination, and violation of related California statutes. The jury awarded plaintiff $340,700 in compensatory damages and

Unruh Act: Court Of Appeal Affirms $12,436 Attorney’s Fees Award Based On Limited Success Of Plaintiff

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  In a Split Opinion, Second District, Division 6 Rejects Plaintiff’s Requested $24,871.75 In Light of His Recovery of $4,000 Minimum Statutory Damages.      In cases involving mandatory fee-shifting statutes (such as the Unruh Act, Civil Code section 52(a)), we have seen an emerging theme that encompasses a large number of attorney’s fees recoveries: the

Cases Under Review: U.S. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari To Resolve Split On Fee Enhancements

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar

  Issue Is Whether District Judges Can Enhance Lodestar Based Solely on Quality of Attorney Performance and Results Obtained Under Federal Fee-Shifting Statute.      Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on an attorney’s fees issues that has generated a split among federal appellate courts on whether district judges can enhance lodestars based solely on

FEHA: Court of Appeal Affirms Award Of Lower Fee Award To Winning Plaintiff

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division 4 Sustains Fee Award of $676,001 Based on a 1.25 Multiplier, Rather than Plaintiff’s Requested $940,590.87 Lodestar Plus a Proposed 2.0 Multiplier.      The First District, Division 4, in the unpublished decision of Tarver v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. A116731 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 23, 2009) (unpublished),

POOF!: Civil Rights Fees Award Of $260,782.50 Is Vacated Upon Reversal of Qualified Immunity Ruling

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: POOF!

Ninth Circuit Takes Away Substantial Section 1983 Fee Award.      Federal appeals court, too, illustrate our POOF! principle—substantial fee awards vanish when a favorable merits determination is reversed upon review.      In Johnson v. Walton, Case Nos. 07-55935, 07-56238 & 07-56547 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009) (for publication), two plaintiffs were awarded a total of

FEHA: 25% Of Requested Fees Awarded Based On Apportionment

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division 3 Sustains Application of Negative Multiplier Based on Plaintiff Prevailing On Only One of Four Claims.      The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. (FEHA), has a mandatory fee-shifting provision for prevailing plaintiffs. (Gov. Code, sec. 12965(b).) Nonetheless, it is tempered by mandating only awards of

Potpourri: FEHA Fee Award Against Costco And Recent Article Confirms Steep Decrease in Jury Trial At Both State and Federal Levels

Cases: Civil Rights, Off Topics

Costco Hit With FEHA Fee Award of $471,240 Plus Costs.      In our category “Civil Rights,” you will find cases discussing California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a statutory scheme that has a mandatory fee-shifting provision in favor of winning plaintiffs. The next fee award demonstrates that, depending on the ultimate outcome, fee awards

Prevailing Individual Defendant In Employment Retaliation Case Awarded Substantial Routine Costs After Rejected 998 Offer Of $1.179 Million 998 Offer Found Reasonable In Nature

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Section 998

  Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms Costs Award in Favor of Winning Individual Defendant.      If you are a plaintiff suing for employment retaliation, do not think that the suit carries little risks. Routine, non-fee costs of a substantial nature can still be assessed against you. Also, you as the plaintiff need to seriously evaluate

Scroll to Top