Second District, Division 5 Finds No Abuse of Discretion, But Provides Tantalizing Dicta on Statement of Decision Requirements in Unpublished Decision; It Also Reminds Everyone to Provide a Reporter’s Transcript on Appeal. The next case may seem mundane, but does give some insights into the thought process of judges when confronting fee awards where
Decision Reversing $200,000 Fee Award and Remanding for Reconsideration. In our December 25, 2008 post, we reviewed McCown v. City of Fontana, 550 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2008), which reversed and remanded a $200,000 fee award in a civil rights case (42 U.S.C. sec. 1983). The Ninth Circuit recently denied panel rehearing and
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
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
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
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
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 The First District, Division 4, in the unpublished decision of Tarver v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. A116731 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 23, 2009) (unpublished),
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
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
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
