Theory Is That Carriers Are An Extension Of FEMA In Remitting Payments So As To Trigger Fee Recovery Under EAJA. Back in 2009, the Fifth Circuit in Dwyer v. Fidelity National Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 565 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 2019) foreclosed recovery of attorney’s fees in coverage litigation by flood plaintiffs
September 9, 2019 Unpublished Decision Now Partially Published. On September 9, 2019, we posted on then unpublished decision in Hawkins v. City of Los Angeles, which dealt with the Bane Act/Whistleblower Retaliation victories, and $1,054,286.88 attorney’s fees award, obtained by two fired Department of Transportation hearing examiners who had sued the City of Los
There Was Humor Here—Ninth Circuit Agreed Attorney Petitioning For Fees Was Ill-Advised To Put In A Declaration By A Hawaiian Plumber About What The Plumber Charged! As you will see, there is some underlying humor simmering in Roberts v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 16-16179 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2019) (published). What
$1,054,286.88 Was Fee Award Affirmed Against Los Angeles. Two fired Department of Transportation hearing examiners sued the City of Los Angeles under the Bane Act and for whistleblower retaliation, claiming that the City pressured them to change adverse decisions in hearings on parking citations. They won their claims before a jury which awarded them
Oral Motion For Fees Or Fee Request In Responsive Pleading Before A Hearing Did Not Satisfy The Requirement To Bring Through A Noticed Motion. Petitioner losing a civil harassment restraining order was assessed with attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6 (a fee-shifting provision in this area) to the tune of $3,780 in favor of
Action Was Not Frivolous And Was Not Prosecuted In Bad Faith. County of Los Angeles, in Shah v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B291084 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 22, 2019) (unpublished), was not happy when the trial judge denied its attorney’s fees request of $206,157.50 after prevailing against plaintiff on FEHA claims.
Plaintiff Sought To Recover $358,383 In Fees; Limited Success Was Key Reason For Denial. In Pierce v. City of Philadelphia, Civil Action No. 17-5539 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2019), a Native American plaintiff brought various civil rights, constitutional, Title VII, and state-related claims against City of Philadelphia for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and hostile work
Legislature’s 2019 Amendment In Government Code Section 12965(b) Was To Be Retroactively Applied. Effective January 1, 2019, the California Legislature amended Government Code section 12965(b) to resolve a split between two decisions, Sviridov and Arave [both of which were discussed in posts under our categories “Civil Rights” and “Section 998”], about whether CCP §
Fees Properly Included A 1.3 Multiplier, With No Allocation Required Because Proof On FEHA And Other Claims Were Intertwined. Plaintiff tenants, a cohabiting unmarried couple, sued a San Francisco defendant apartment owner for FEHA marital discrimination, invasion of privacy, and breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant based on owner’s actions in attempting to evict
$2.4-3.8 Million Fee Request In Civil Rights Case Properly Denied In Entirety. On June 7, 2019, we posted on Guillory v. Hill, Case No. G054027 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 31, 2019) (unpublished), where a $2.4-3.8 million fee request under a section 1988 was denied in entirety based on minimal success and what the
