Cases: Civil Rights

Civil Rights: Prevailing Civil Rights Plaintiffs In Significantly Pared Down Police Raid Case, Gaining Damages Of About $5,400, Properly Denied Fees Altogether

Cases: Civil Rights

Based On Limited Success And Inflated Billings, $2.4-3.8 Million Fee Requests Did Not Resonate With Trial Or Appellate Courts.             Guillory v. Hill, Case No. G054027 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 31, 2019) (unpublished) dealt with a civil rights case brought by plaintiffs after a police raid of a mansion in the aftermath of a […]

Civil Rights, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Ninth Circuit Reverses And Remands Close To $1 Million Attorney’s Fees Award Under EAJA Against the Government

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Problem Was That District Judge Did Not Have Benefit Of Goodyear Tire Decision.             In Lu v. United States of America, Case Nos. 17-55040/17-55087 (9th Cir. April 17, 2019) (published), the federal court of appeals had to grapple with a long-running case involving tort claims involving a Chinese national and asylum officer where substantial compensatory

Civil Rights: Winning FEHA Plaintiff Recovers $211,795.80 In Attorney’s Fees, Inclusive Of A 1.2 Positive Multiplier On Lodestar Amount. Plus $25,603.73 In Costs

Cases: Civil Rights

Real Life Example Of A Fees/Costs Ruling By A San Mateo Superior Court Judge.           We like to provide real life examples of rulings by California superior court judges where we can. We give a “hat tip” to Robert S. Nelson of Nelson Law Group (San Francisco), who successfully obtained attorney’s fees/costs for his FEHA plaintiff

Civil Rights, Section 998: FEHA Amended To Provide That CCP § 998 Fee/Costs Shifting In Favor Of Prevailing Defendant Will Not Happen Unless Plaintiff’s Action Was Frivolous

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Section 998

Legislative Enactment Resolved Split Among DCAs, As Recognized In Huerta, Effective January 1, 2019.             Although alluding to it in some posts on a year-end 2018 case, we post to indicate that California Senate Bill 1300 amended the FEHA scheme to provide that CCP § 998 offers may not be used to shift recovery of

Civil Rights, Multiplier: FEHA Plaintiff’s Appeal Of A Reduced Fee Award Did Not Result In Any Change

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers

Hourly Rates Were Too High, Case Was Overprepared, And Limited Success Before The Jury Supported Lower Court’s Reduced Award.             FEHA plaintiff in Check v. Raley’s, Case No. A153906 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 31, 2019) (unpublished) won $119,211 on some claims, later requesting the trial court to award her $1,109,107 in fees. The lower

Civil Rights: Ninth Circuit, In En Banc Published Opinion, Clarifies EAJA Fee Shifting Analysis For Unreached Claims, Successful vs. Unsuccessful Claims If Common Core Of Facts Involved, And Bad Faith Gov. Test For Whether EAJA Fee Cap Can Be Exceeded

Cases: Civil Rights

En Banc Hearing Makes A Number Of Cutting EAJA Fee Shifting Determinations.             Well, we are all in a New Year (2019 to be exact), everyone. Top of the Year, with the Ninth Circuit providing an en banc decision of importance in the civil rights/EAJA fee-shifting area.             In Ibrahim v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland

Civil Rights, Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Judge Properly Awarded Fees Of $710,000 To A Somewhat Successful Plaintiff In A FEHA Case, Rejecting Inflated Fee Request Of Over $2.7 Million

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Compensatory Award Was $307,762, Even Though Jury Was Asked To Award $7 Million.             Inflated fee requests, as we know from the oft-quoted decision in Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1325-1326 (2008), are a special situation which allows a trial judge to substantially reduce or deny altogether the request. Alnor was front

Civil Rights, Section 998: 2/8 DCA Holds, For Pre-2019 Cases, That Plaintiffs In Nonfrivolous FEHA Suits Are Not Entitled To Costs Shifting Under CCP § 998

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Section 998

Panel Agrees With Reasoning In Arave Opinion So Holding.             Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature has determined that plaintiffs in FEHA cases found to be nonfrivolous in nature do not face fee, costs, or expert witness fee exposure under the FEHA shifting statute or even under CCP § 998 after rejection of a 998

Scroll to Top