Cases: Laffey Matrix – Page 2 – Cal Attorneys Fees

Laffey Matrix: D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals, In 2-1 Opinion, Reverses District Judge’s Use Of USAO’s Updated Laffey Matrix Rather Than LSI Laffey Matrix In IDEA Fee Case

May 26, 2019

USAO’s Updated Matrix Had Too Large Of A Community Pool For Fee Shifting-Purposes. In DL v. District of Columbia, No. 18-7004 (D.C. Cir. May 21, 2019), the D.C. Circuit was faced with determining whether plaintiff was properly awarded attorney’s fees in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) case after the district judge accepted

Laffey Matrix/SLAPP: 569 East County Appellate Court Affirms SLAPP Fee Reduction After Rehearing

December 5, 2016

$152,529.95 Fee Request Slashed Down To $30,752.86 Through Actual Fee Order. On May 20, 2016 and June 20, 2016, we posted on a case which was later accepted for rehearing by the same appellate panel. The opinion upon rehearing is now out in 569 East County Blvd. LLC v. Backcountry Against The Drop,

Lodestar/Laffey Matrix/Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Syers Properties Opinion Now Certified For Publication

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

May 28, 2014

Reviewed in Our May 6, 2014 Post. In our May 6, 2014 post, we reviewed Syers Properties v. Rankin, Case No. A137610 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 5, 2014 issued unpublished), which held among other things that: (1) detailed categorical breakout of time spent can substantiate a fee petition in California state courts;

Lodestar/Laffey Matrix/Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $843,245.27 Civil Code Section 1717 Fee Request/Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

May 6, 2014

Successful Defendants Substantiated Hours and Hourly Rate Very Well In This One. Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin, Case No. A137610 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 5, 2014) (unpublished) is a case where a $843,245.27 defense fee award under Civil Code section 1717 was challenged on narrow grounds—with plaintiff disputing the reasonableness of

Laffey Matrix: DKN Holdings Decision Just Published

Cases: Laffey Matrix

April 25, 2014

U.S. Attorney’s Office Laffey Matrix Not Binding On State Courts In Determining Hourly Rates. On April 9, 2014, we posted on DKN Holdings, LLC v. Faerler, a Fourth District, Division Two unpublished decision finding that the U.S. Attorney’s Office Laffey Matrix (developed for the D.C. area) was not binding on state courts when

Laffey Matrix: Riverside Superior Courts Laugh Off Laffey Matrix On Hourly Rates

Cases: Laffey Matrix

April 9, 2014

Number of Years of Experience But One Factor. The winner of a commercial lease dispute with a fees clause was awarded $54,817.50 in fees, about 30% less than requested. On appeal, the loser argued that the trial court had to rely on the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Laffey Matrix information in fixing fees. The appellate

Laffey Matrix: Both U.S. Attorney’s Office And Adjusted Matrices Are Out

Cases: Laffey Matrix

March 29, 2014

Although there is a raging debate on which one to use, both the U.S. Attorney’s Office version and the Adjusted version of the Laffey Matrix are out for 2013-2014. (If you go to our category “Laffey Matrix,” you will get posts on the debate.) However, here is what the recent matrices show for

Laffey Matrix: Third Circuit, In Late 2013, Approves Updated Laffey Matrix Use By District Judge

Cases: Laffey Matrix

January 8, 2014

For those of you following our hourly rate analysis in the fee substantiation area, we have posted in the past on the use of the Laffey Matrix and related permutations in our December 31, 2010 post. We now have an update for you from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (federal level).

Reasonableness Of Fees: Virginia-Based Courts Offer Laffey Matrix Adjustment Alternative And Tweaks To Calculating Fees Based On Degree Of Success

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

November 14, 2013

Given California’s More Liberal Approaches, These Alternatives Might Offer Guidance. California endows trial judges with quite a bit of discretion when fixing the reasonableness of fees in a fee petition proceeding. Hourly rates can be pegged based on attorney declarations, surveys, matrices, and the like. Lodestar adjustments, upward or downward, are based on

Substantiation Of Fees: Laffey, Adjusted Laffey Matrix, Or Hybrid Approach For Determining Reasonable Hourly Lodestar Rate–Part 2 of 2

Cases: Laffey Matrix

December 31, 2010

Adjusted Laffey Matrix Methodology and U.S. District Judge Walker’s Approach. In our December 28, 2010 post, we discussed the Laffey Matrix, which has gained acceptance by some judges in determining reasonable hourly rates for attorneys when it comes to presentation of proof in fees petitions. We now give you an introduction to alternative methodologies