Cases: Civil Rights

Plaintiffs Can Also Seek Compensation For Postjudgment Fee Work Before The Superior Court After Remittitur Issuance.             The California Voting Rights Act, Elections Code section 14030, has a pro-plaintiff, private attorney general-type of fee shifting provision, which states: “ . . . the court shall allow the prevailing plaintiff party, other than the state or

Ted Bacon Of AlvaradoSmith Provided A “Real Life” War Story Illustrating The Point.             During a two-hour sexual harassment mandatory training session, Ted Bacon of AlvaradoSmith provided a “real life” war story about how the liberal, pro-plaintiff FEHA fee shifting statute can still result in a fee award which dwarfs a plaintiff’s compensatory recovery.  What

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             Plaintiff, in Nemer v. City of Mill Valley, Case No. A159224 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 28, 2020) (unpublished), was hit with a $107,721 adverse attorney’s fees award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 based on the lower court’s perception that his due process claims were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

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             Albarracin v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Case No. B292895 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 13, 2020) (unpublished) illustrates this point well.