Cases: Lodestar

Allocation, Employment, Hourly Rates, Lodestar, Multipliers, Paralegal Time:  $1,677,071.25 Full Request Fee Award In Bay Area FEHA Case Affirmed On Appeal With A Minor Remand Revisit

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Hourly Rates, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Paralegal Time

Plaintiff Was Awarded $3.272 Million Damages (With $3.5 Million Punitive Damages Ordered For A New Trial); Remand Issue Was That Clerical And Paralegal Work Should Not Have Been Billed Out At A $925 Hourly Rate. Knight v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. A172015 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 2, 2026) (unpublished) has a nice discussion

Allocation, Block Billing, Hourly Rates, Lodestar, Trade Secrets: Seattle Federal District Judge Awarded Prevailing Plaintiff Parties In Trade Secrets Act Case About $1.25 Million In Fees And A Little Over $42,000 In Costs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Block Billing, Cases: Hourly Rates, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Trade Secrets

Small Reductions Were Made, And No Allocation Was Required. Under both Washington’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, there are attorney’s fees shifting provisions in favor of a prevailing plaintiff proving that the trade secret was willfully and maliciously misappropriated.  These fee entitlements were operative in Silver Fern Chemical, Inc.

Lodestar, Multipliers, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where Prevailing Plaintiff Won Substantial Trial And Appellate Victories On The Scope Of Penal Code Section 496(c), Substantial Fee Award Was Affirmed On Appeal With A Minor Remand Issue

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Lodestar, Not Contingency Fee Agreement Amount, Governed Work On Section 496(c) Work, Requiring A Remand On That Sole Issue. Siry Investments, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour, Case No. B340681 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 23, 2026) (unpublished) involved a long-ranging dispute between the parties with respect to the scope of relief and attorney’s fees allowed under Penal Code

Lodestar, Sanctions: CCP § 128.5 Sanctions, With A Small Reduction, Were Affirmed Against The Defense Where A Mistrial Motion Was Granted Based On Violating The Parties’ Trial Stipulation On An Evidentiary Issue

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Sanctions

The One Reduction Related To A Duplication Argument Not Supportable. In Rodriguez v. Paramount Convalescent Group, Inc., Case No. B344443 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 6, 2026) (unpublished), a trial court awarded $81,536.13 in attorney’s fees and costs under CCP § 128.5 against the defense and in favor of plaintiff where the defense violated the

Lodestar: Over 75% Plus Haircut In Lodestar Request By A Prevailing Civil Harassment Restraining Order Litigant Drew A Reversal And Remand

Cases: Lodestar

Appellate Court Could Not Discern Basis For The Substantial Reduction, So Remanded. In Costa v. Kral, Case No. G065336 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2026) (unpublished), there was no dispute that a civil harassment restraining order litigant prevailed and was entitled to fees under CCP § 527.6(s).  Winning litigant moved for $21,237.50 in prevailing

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees: Taduran Decision Recently Certified For Publication

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Opinion Affirmed A Negative Multiplier And Rejection Of A Positive Multiplier When Prevailing Employee Challenged The Fee Award As Too Small Under The Abuse Of Discretion Review Standard. In our May 29, 2026 post, we discussed Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., Case No. G06478 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 26, 2026 filed;

Class Actions, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: $2.274 Million Fee Award To Class Counsel, Where The Case Settled For $575,000, Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Plaintiffs Had Asked For About $7.465 Million Inclusive Of A 2.0 Positive Multiplier, With The Appellate Court Rebuffing That Any Further Reduction Was Justified. Defendant reached a settlement with plaintiffs in a class action case in Davis v. AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Case No. B348322 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 1, 2026) (unpublished) for $575,000, although

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers: Reduced $733,440 Fee Award In PAGA/Labor Violations Case, From Requested $1.047 Million Lodestar, Was Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Non-Complexity Of Issues, Lack Of Success From Stated Goals, And Upward Adjustment Of Past Hourly Rates To Future Periods Of The Litigation Justified The .07 (Negative) Multiplier And No Award Of A Positive Multiplier. Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., Case No. G064718 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 26, 2026) (unpublished) is a

Lodestar, Retainer Agreements: After Lower Court Determined That Retainer Agreement Was Unconscionable And Determined Client Owed Nothing Under A Quantum Meruit Recovery, The Appellate Court Reduced The Contractual Fee Award To Client For Dilatory Conduct

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Retainer Agreements

This Case Shows How, Even On Appeal, Justices Will Try To Balance Equity On Fee Awards. In Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae v. Yakobi, Case No. B338762 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Apr. 3, 2026) (unpublished), a client won a fee dispute against her former attorneys, with the lower court finding certain provisions

Lodestar, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Deed Restriction Document Gave Rise to Contractual Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees, Miscellaneous

$144,210 Was The Fees Award, With Attorney Declaration Of Efforts Sufficient And Rejecting The Notion That City’s Lead Counsel’s Salary Guided The Lodestar Analysis. In City of Santa Monica v. Sung, Case No. B336881 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 10, 2026) (unpublished), defendant condo owner lost a declaratory relief action brought by City

Scroll to Top