Plaintiff’s Due Process Claims Were Not Frivolous—Timing Was Everything! Plaintiff, in Nemer v. City of Mill Valley, Case No. A159224 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 28, 2020) (unpublished), was hit with a $107,721 adverse attorney’s fees award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 based on the lower court’s perception that his due process claims were […]
No Violation of Law Shown Under Various Disability Statutes, With Catalyst And Prelitigation Demand Contentions Not Helping Either. Because construction/website disability claims are flooding the federal and state courts, Skaff v. Rio Nido Roadhouse, Case Nos. A152462/A153606 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 5, 2020) (published) is a case showing that the judiciary is eyeballing
Although FEHA Case Was Not Frivolous, Costs Allowable On Non-FEHA Claims. Even though a losing FEHA plaintiff only gets tagged with routine costs if plaintiff’s case is frivolous, that does not mean that plaintiffs in all actions do not face exposure, which is the situation when non-FEHA claims are involved. Obi v. L.A.
Case Illustrates How FEHA Fee Awards Can Be Substantial For Prevailing Plaintiffs. FEHA has a pro-plaintiff fee shifting statute. When plaintiffs prevail under this statute, the fee awards can be quite substantial. Albarracin v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Case No. B292895 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 13, 2020) (unpublished) illustrates this point well.
No Evidence That Case Was Filed Or Maintained For An Improper Purpose. In Fong v. Eastern Municipal Water Dist., Case No. E071088 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 16, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff—through an attorney—filed a complaint alleging illegal recording Penal Code and FEHA claims. Her attorney withdrew from the case, and the defense filed an
Grant Of Full Lodestar Request Was The Main Reason For Refusing Multiplier, A Determination Affirmed On Appeal. A plaintiff prevailed on FEHA claims against defendant in Scudder v. Dept. of Transportation, Case No. B293859 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 14, 2020) (unpublished). Plaintiff then moved for attorney’s fees in a lodestar amount of $592,075
That Means That Petitioner’s Motion To Recover Fees Of $22 Million Under A One-Way Fee Shifting Statute Went Bye-Bye. Petitioner’s neighborhood association and a resident, in Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, Case No. B295935 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 9, 2020) (published), had successfully sued Santa Monica when a lower court
Limited Success/Allocation Fee Challenges Rejected On Appeal; Expert Witness Fees Can Be Sought Through A Costs Memorandum. In Abarca v. Citizens of Humanity, LLC, Case No. B290090 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 18, 2020) (unpublished), a FEHA plaintiff won a jury verdict on disability discrimination/retaliation claims, although losing two other claims, to the tune
On Remand, Lower Court Also Needs To Reexamine Its Multiplier Analysis In Tandem With Rewarding Higher Hourly Rates. Caldera v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case Nos. G057343/G057478 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 30, 2020) (published) is a case where our local Santa Ana appellate court reviewed a FEHA attorney’s fees award to plaintiff’s
Costs Award Reversed Because Intertwined Claims Were Not Frivolous In Nature. If a trial judge finds that a plaintiff’s FEHA case is not frivolous in nature, a defendant faces large odds to gain an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Hays v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B291542 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar.
