$125,000 Fee Award Sustained on Appeal. Although FEHA fee awards are not that common against plaintiffs, they will be assessed and affirmed on appeal under the right circumstances. Fair Housing Council, San Fernando Valley v. Voleti Properties, Case Nos. B201263 & B202918 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 21, 2009) (unpublished) is just such […]
Second District, Division 6 Rebuffs Challenges to FEHA Multipliers. Plaintiffs winning claims under the California Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq., are normally awarded fee-shifting awards. Trial courts have ability to enhance the lodestar—the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate—by a multiplier in order
Case Remanded for Fee Reconsideration by District Judge. California federal courts, at least in civil right cases, require more detailed findings in fee awards conferred to plaintiffs than our state courts do under similar circumstances. (As discussed in posts listed under our category "Cases: Civil Rights," state courts do require specific findings in FEHA
Mother’s Day Giveaway Does Not Violate Unruh Act or Give Losing Plaintiffs a Right to Fees. In our November 28, 2008 post, we discussed Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., a Fourth District, Division Three decision holding that the Mother’s Day totebag giveaway at Angels’ Stadium did not violate the Unruh Act and that the
Fourth District, Division One Rejects Engrafting Rosenman Requirements Into Routine Costs Proceedings. In our earlier posts of December 11, 2008 on Trisler and December 16, 2008 on Young, we discussed the Rosenman requirements in FEHA cases: the trial court must make specific written findings as to why the action was frivolous and about
District Court Did Not Identify Special Circumstances Rendering a Fee Award Unjust Under Civil Rights Fee-Shifting Statute. Six media corporation plaintiffs obtained both a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction against the Nevada Secretary of State pursuant to the federal civil rights statute, which also has a fee-shifting statute in 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Plaintiffs
Second District, Division Eight Affirms Lower Court’s Discretion to Not Award Fees to Winning FEHA Defendant Where the Actual Beneficiary of the Award is Another Defendant Not Entitled to Fee Recoupment. In our December 11, 2008 post on Trisler, we discussed the FEHA fee-shifting statute, Government Code section 12965(b), and the leading case
Second District, Division Two Affirms Award and Acknowledges that Findings of Frivolousness Must Be Written/Specific in Nature. As we have noted in past posts on actions brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.), a court has discretion to award fees and costs to the prevailing party.
Third District, in Unpublished Decision, Affirms Fee Award Against Losing Plaintiff. Many of our past posts under the category “Cases: Civil Rights” tend to demonstrate that it is an unusual showing that results in fee exposure for a losing plaintiff in civil rights or Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code sec. 12940
Fourth District, Division Three Finds Plaintiffs Were Not Catalysts For Change So As To Be Entitled to Fees. Our fellow blawg “Cal Biz Lit” has an interesting post on November 21, 2008, discussing our local Fourth District, Division Three’s unpublished opinion in Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Case No. G038388 (4th Dist., Div. 3
