Cases: Civil Rights

Plaintiff’s Attempted Vindication Of His Own Rights After Employment Termination Did Not Entitle Him To Recoup Fees Under Either The Civil Rights Fee-Shifting Provision Or The Private Attorney General Statute

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

Second District, Division Two So Rules in Case Where Ex-Police Officer Did Not Prove a Civil Rights Violation and Never Obtained Reinstatement of His Former Position in the Police Department.             Plaintiff, an ex-police officer in the City of Torrance, was terminated based on a domestic violence incident resulting in his conviction

FEHA Prevailing Party Can Be Awarded Expert Witness Fees By Noticed Motion Even Though Cost Memorandum Deadlines Are Exceeded

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

Second District, Division Eight So Rules in Case Involving Non-Court Ordered Expert Witness Fees.             Government Code section 12965(b) specifies that, in retaliation claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), “the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees

Civil Code Section 1717 Mandates Fee Award To Unqualified Winner On Contract Claim And Requires Reversal of Award Against Contract Nonsignatories

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division One Affirms and Reverses Portions of Fee Award Under Contractual Provision and Discretionary Fee-Shifting Statutes.             By now, it should be apparent that there are stark differences in how some fee-shifting statutes operate.  Civil Code section 1717 mandates an award to a "prevailing party" under a contractual fees clause,

Fifth District Affirms Most Respects Of A FEHA Attorney Fee Remand Proceeding, But Does Not Award Plaintiffs Payment At The Top Permissible Rate For All Hours Claimed By The Attorneys

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Court of Appeal Sustains Reductions by Trial Court and Suggests That Fees Expended by the Opposition Has Probative Value in Fee Proceedings.             In Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (Horsford I), 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 402 (2005), the Fifth District Court of Appeal determined a trial court had applied

District Judge Feess Awards Fees Of $1.1 Million To Attorneys Representing Prevailing Individual Defendants In Civil Rights Lawsuit Involving Nullification of Kern County Biosolids Ban Ordinance

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

District Court Will Not Award Requested $2 Million in Fees Sought by Individual Plaintiffs.             In early August 2008, the Ninth Circuit decided that anything more than a 10% fee "haircut" to prevailing civil rights plaintiffs is seldom justifiable unless specific reasons are set forth for more drastic reductions.  See Moreno v.

Ninth Circuit Reverses Zero Section 1988 Civil Rights Fee Award Where Plaintiff Recovered On Some Theories Against Some Defendants

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Civil Rights

Federal Court of Appeals Neither Adopts a “Shocks the Conscience” Test Nor Endorses a “Block Billing Entries Denial” Fee Recovery Standard in Civil Rights Cases.             In Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, Case Nos. 05-56118, 06-56424, & 07-56029 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2008), Mendez and family members prevailed upon and lost

Nonvictorious Qui Tam Plaintiff Is Not Assessed With Requests For Admission Sanctions Or Attorney’s Fees For Bringing A Frivolous Action

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District So Rules Even Though Plaintiff Lost at the Demurrer Stage.             In State of California ex rel. Dockstader v. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc., Case No. B197343 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 26, 2008) (unpublished), a qui tam plaintiff lost a demurrer against some private defendants for reimbursement of costs relating

SMITH BARNEY SETTLES GENDER DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS BROUGHT UNDER TITLE VII AND FEHA, WITH ATTORNEY’S FEES OF $7 MILLION AWARDED TO CLASS ACTION COUNSEL

Cases: Civil Rights

District Judge Hamilton Approves Settlement On August 13, 2008.             On March 31, 2005, certain women, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed a lawsuit in United States District Court, Northern District of California, seeking monetary, injunctive and other relief against Smith Barney because of alleged gender discrimination.  The lawsuit,

Can An Intervenor Be Liable for An Award of Attorney’s Fees?

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

Yes, With the Answer Depending on Whether the Fee Entitlement Statute Is Discretionary/Mandatory in Nature or Whether the Intervenor Is “Innocent.”             The Ninth Circuit recently explored the issue of when an intervenor may be held liable for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under two fee-shifting statutes, one arising under

Second District, Division 2 Joins Division 4 In Affirming Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Successful FEHA Defendant Because Plaintiff’s Action Was Not Proven Frivolous In Nature

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

No Express Findings Are Required When Denying a Fee Award to a Winning FEHA Defendant.                                                                                                                       

Scroll to Top