Cases: Civil Rights

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

FEHA: Appellate Court Sustains 1.4-1.6 Multipliers To Plaintiffs’ Fee Awards

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar

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

Civil Rights: Ninth Circuit Reverses $200,000 Section 1988 Fee Award For Failure To Explain Lodestar Calculation And Consider Plaintiff’s Level of Success In the Litigation

Cases: Civil Rights

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

Double Header — Baseball Angels Dominate Judicial News Yet Again: Fourth District, Division Three Publishes Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.

Cases: Civil Rights

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

FEHA: Losing Plaintiff Suffers Adverse Costs Award, With No Need To Weigh Whether Plaintiff Has The Ability to Pay

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

  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

Civil Rights: Ninth Circuit Reverses And Remands District Court’s Refusal To Award Fees To Plaintiffs Obtaining Both A Preliminary And A Permanent Injunction

Cases: Civil Rights

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

FEHA Winning Supervisor Awarded Only $1 In Attorney’s Fees Because Non-Fee Garnering Employer Funded Winner’s Defense

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Plaintiff Prosecuting Unreasonable FEHA and Torts Against Governmental Defendants Suffers Adverse Fee and Costs Award of $221,452

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review

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

Scroll to Top