Lodestar Check Or Other Means Can Be Used To “Cross Check” Reasonableness of Percentage Fee Numbers Chosen By The Trial Judge In Common Fund Cases. In a much awaited decision, the California Supreme Court in Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc., Case No. S222996 (Cal. Supreme Court Aug. 11, 2016) gave trial judges considerable […]
72% Of Fee Request Approved Under Clear Sailing Provision. In Choi v. Restaino, Case No. B257480 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 21, 2016) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), a class of healing cream purchasers sued defendant under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, among other claims, based on overpaying for creams based on inadequate
Both Sides Appealed, But No Difference. In Kirk v. First American Title Co., Case No. B257508 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 22, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff class representative lost a majority of claims involving title charges, but did win one Insurance Code violation. The lower court awarded costs to plaintiff under the routine costs
Some Commentators Suggest This Is Death Knell Of TCPA Class Actions. In the last few years, “junk fax” class actions apparently have proliferated under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). This proliferation has irked the Illinois Court of Appeal, First Judicial District, prompting some reasoning which class action lawyers likely will deplore in
Majority And Concurring Opinions Have Interesting Discussions On Valuing Settlement Benefit Of Class, Degree Of Fee Substantiation Necessary, And Propriety Of “Clear Sailing” And “Kicker” Settlement Provisions. A recent decision from the Sixth Circuit, Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, No. 14-3761/3798 (6th Cir. May 13, 2016) (published), is an interesting one for
Ninth Circuit Even Takes Unusual Step Of Assigning To A Different District Judge On Remand. Stetson v. Grissom, Case Nos. 13-57061/13-57159 (9th Cir. May 11, 2016) (published) is a case where a nonparticipating class member objector challenged an award of fees to Class Counsel and appealed the district judge’s failure to award fees
#1: Choi v. Mario Badescu Skin Care, Case No. B257480 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 29, 2016) (Unpublished). Caption: “Testing cosmetics. Washington D.C. July 10, 1937. The department of Agriculture is making tests everyday in order to get cosmetics under the Pure Food and Drug Act, Mrs. C.W. West seated is helping Mrs.
District Judge Erred In Basing Fee Award Upon Only In Camera Review Of Timesheets Never Provided To The Defense. Although occurring in a class action setting, this next case may have broader due process implications for cases in other areas of the law. Time will tell on this prediction. In Yamada v.
Ninth Circuit Holds That Class Representative Must Have Opportunity To Show Certification Warranted. On January 29, 2016, we posted on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 163 (2016), which held that F.R.Civ.P. 68 unaccepted offers do not moot either an individual or a class action matter (usually
Landlord/Tenant: Sevier v. Ghannoura, Case No. B259542 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 22, 2016) (Unpublished). Tenant won compensatory damages of $21,865 against landlords for illegal entry into common areas of a rental apartment without proper notice. There was a fees clause, requiring mediation as a condition precedent, but tenant satisfied that by requesting
