Cases: Civil Rights

Ninth Circuit Issues A Pair Of American With Disabilities Act Decisions On Attorney’s Fees—Confronting Reduction Factors And A Standing Issue

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Federal Court of Appeals Overturns Two Fee Denial Orders in ADA Cases.             The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. secs. 12101-12213, has a federal fee-shifting provision in section 12205, which allows a district court “in its discretion” to award the “prevailing party … a reasonable attorney’s fees.”  In

Prevailing FEHA Plaintiff Awarded $499,245.80—Lodestar Augmented By 1.55 Multiplier—In Unpublished Decision

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District Affirms Substantial Fee Award and Compensatory Judgment Following Successful Bench Trial for Plaintiff.             Government Code section 12965(b) authorizes an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in an action brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  Normally, the prevailing plaintiff should be awarded

Civil Rights Plaintiff Obtains Ninth Circuit Reversal Of 40% Diminishment of Attorney’s Fees Award

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Standard of Review

Chief Justice Kozinski Overturns Excessive Fee Haircut And Sets A Presumptive 10% Standard For Review of Fee Haircuts.             Part of blogging is to recognize and “hat tip” posts by our colleagues.  Greg May, of the California Blog of Appeal, posted a very informative post on Moreno v. City of Sacramento, Case

FEHA Prevailing Defendant Does Not Garner Attorney’s Fees Award Unless Plaintiff Action Found To Be Frivolous In Nature

Cases: Civil Rights

Second District Affirms Principle in Recent Unpublished Decision.             FEHA, Government Code sec. 12900 et seq., is the California Fair Employment and Housing Act that prohibits racial discrimination and retaliation.  Government Code section 12965(b) provides that the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees and costs,

Fee Award Of About $2.5 Million Is Sustained In Favor Of Counsel For Prevailing Civil Rights Litigants

Cases: Civil Rights

Ninth Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict By Former L.A. Police Officers Against City of Los Angeles and Chief Parks.             Three police officers brought federal civil rights claims against Los Angeles governmental entities and officials, arising from prosecutions and acquittals of criminal charges connected with the Rampart scandal.  After certain defendants were dismissed

Breaking News: Supreme Court Denies Review of Harman v. City and County of San Francisco

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Denial of Writ of Certiorari Leaves Court of Appeal Opinion – and Fee Award — Intact.             On June 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition for writ of certiorari for San Francisco v Harman, Allen.  —S.Ct.—, 2008 WL 1955817 (U.S. Cal.), 76 USLW 3611.      

CITY OF FRESNO SETTLES CASE INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT VIOLATIONS IN PROPERTY SWEEPS OF HOMELESS, PAYING $850,000 IN FEES AND COSTS TO ATTORNEYS FOR HOMELESS

Cases: Civil Rights

Settlement Follows on the Heels of a Preliminary Injunction and Denial of Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motions.             In Fall 2006, several homeless persons, individually and on a behalf of a class of all homeless people living in the City of Fresno whose personal belongings were unlawfully taken and destroyed in sweeps, raids,

ON APPEAL, REVIEWING COURT INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWS STATUTORY ENTITLEMENT TO FEES—AND STILL DETERMINES THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY DENIED FEES TO A PREVAILING PARTY

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

Sixth District Correctly Sets Forth Standard of Review and Still Determines Prevailing Party Not Entitled to Fee Recovery Under the Mobile Residency Law, Civil Code section 1717, or the Unruh Act.             In Ideal Homes v. DenHoy, Case No. H031071 (6th Dist. May 27, 2008) (unpublished), the Sixth District reminded us that

Scroll to Top