Cases: Civil Rights

Civil Rights: Under The California Voting Rights Act, “Cost Of Work Product” Includes Costs Incurred On Behalf Of Future Named Plaintiffs And A Contingency Attorney Advancing Costs On Behalf Of Client(s)

Cases: Civil Rights

Other Interpretations Would Subvert The Remedial Purpose Of The Reimbursement Provisions.             The California Voting Rights Act was passed by the state Legislature to address at-large elections tending to dilute the ability of minority groups to elect candidates (racial block voting), including provisions which allows a prospective plaintiff who gets an ordinance establishing district-based elections to

Appealability, Civil Rights: Disabled Plaintiff Suing Defendant For Website Violations Under The Unruh Act Was Properly Assessed With Defense Attorney’s Fees Of $45,419.50 After Voluntarily Dismissing His Action

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Civil Rights

Plaintiff’s Injunctive Relief Allegations Triggered Civil Code Section 55, Which Allowed Fees To The Defense—Allegations Matter In These Cases.             Sandoval v. Nippon Life Ins. Co. of America, Case No. E077245 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 12, 2022) (unpublished) is an interesting disabled person website case which was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after some discovery. 

Civil Rights, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees: Ninth Circuit Confirms Significant Haircut To Serial ADA Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fees And Costs Award

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

No Abuse Of Discretion In District’s Reduction Of Fees And Costs Award To $9,851 From The Requested $34,899 Where Work Was Routine And Boilerplate, There Was A Lack Of Opposition, And Much Of The Motion Practice Was Unnecessary.             In Shayler v. 1310 PCH, LLC, Case No. 21-56130 (9th Cir. October 24, 2022) (published), serial

Civil Rights, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Website Accessibility Plaintiff’s Award Of $95,295.67 In Attorneys’ Fees And Costs, Under Civil Code Sections 51 And 52, Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Defendant Could Not Renege On Joint Stipulation Wherein It Agreed That It Would Not Dispute Liability, And Would Not Dispute Plaintiff’s Entitlement To Fees/Costs Under Civil Code Sections 51 And 52.             In Gutierrez v. Chopard, Case No. B309098 (2d Dist., Div. 5 August 19, 2022) (published), plaintiff, who is legally blind, filed a complaint

Civil Rights: EAJA Attorney’s Fees Were Properly Denied In Immigration Matter Where It Took A Ninth Circuit En Banc Panel To Decide, Over The Vote Of Three Dissenting Justices, On The Ultimate Merits Issue.

Cases: Civil Rights

Novelty And First Impression Of The Issue Showed That The Government’s Position Was Substantially Justified For EAJA Purposes.             In Medina Tovar v. Zuchowski, No. 21-35664 (9th Cir. July 21, 2022) (published), plaintiffs invalidated a regulation limiting derivative U-visas to spouses married at the time of the filing of the principal petition.  Plaintiffs moved for

Civil Rights, Landlord/Tenant: Frivolous FEHA Case By Plaintiffs In Rental Dispute Justified $228,123.77 Attorney’s Fees, Expert Fees, And Costs Award In Favor Of Prevailing Defendant Owner

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

No Abuse Of Discretion Shown, With Prior Denial Of Summary Judgment Not Disqualifying Owner From Award Of FEHA Fees Under The Right Circumstances.             FEHA has a pro-plaintiff fee shifting statute; however, under the right circumstances, a prevailing defendant can obtain fee shifting against a plaintiff where the case is shown to be frivolous in

Civil Rights, Default Judgments: Ninth Circuit Reverses District Judge’s Entry Of ADA Fees Pursuant To Local Schedule For Default Judgments Rather Than Entertain Fee Motion Requesting Lodestar Fees Where Plaintiff Opted For The Non-Fee Schedule Option

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Default Judgments

This Was A 2-1 Decision, With The Dissent Indicating Plaintiff Did Not Properly Tee This Issue Up Before The District Judge.             The Ninth Circuit, in the 2-1 decision of Machowski v. 333 N. Placentia Property, LLC, No. 21-55673 (9th Cir. July 1, 2022) (published), decided that where an ADA plaintiff indicates that the litigant

Civil Rights, Costs: Costs Relating To Non-FEHA Claims Affirmed, But Remand To Determine If Some Costs Were Justified Because FEHA Claim Was Frivolous

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs

Lack Of Trial Court Findings Required A Limited Remand On Possible FEHA Costs.             In a FEHA/non-FEHA mixed case, routine costs that true non-FEHA claim costs are recoverable but that overlapping FEHA/non-FEHA claim costs which cannot be apportioned can only be recovered if the FEHA claim was frivolous.  (Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc. (2015) 237

Fees, Civil Rights, Employment: USDC Central District Judge Awards Full Freight Fee Award In Waiting-Time Penalties Case

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Record

Judge Finds That Fee Award Of $342,782.50 Is Reasonable In Waiting-Time Penalties Case.         On June 17, 2022, the Hon. R. Gary Klausner issued a fee award to the prevailing plaintiff in a waiting-time penalties case. Caley Rae Pavillard v. Ignite International, Ltd. et al., USDC Central District No. 2:21-cv-01306-RGK-Ex.        

Civil Rights: Civil Rights Plaintiff Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees For Just Defeating A Defense Qualified Immunity Motion Were The Case Was Proceeding To Trial

Cases: Civil Rights

Prevailing Party Can Only Be Determined After A Trial On The Merits.             In Senn v. Smith, Case No. 21-35293 (9th Cir. June 8, 2022) (published), plaintiff brought an excessive force 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against certain defendants, obtaining a denial of the defense motion for qualified immunity—a determination affirmed on appeal.  Plaintiff moved

Scroll to Top