Cases: Lodestar

Lodestar/Multiplier/Settlement/Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff Recovering $2.25 Million Dependent Abuse Verdict Also Recoups Additional $333,727.56 In Fees And $31,016.22 In Costs

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

  Much Less Awarded Than Requested $1.042-1.390 Million in Fees; Plaintiff Stipulated to Costs Reduction, With Modified Judgment Entered Accordingly.      This case is an interesting illustration of how lower courts will reduce an inflated fee request to calculate a lodestar as well as enforce a “high/low” stipulation that was silent with regard to fees/costs. […]

Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court’s Award Of Civil Code Section 1717 Fees To Winning Defendant Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Unpublished Decision Has Nice Review of Lodestar Setting and Appellate Review Principles.      DEI, LLC v. Capital Partners Services Corp., Case No. D062553 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 13, 2014) (unpublished) is not remarkable for the appellate court’s affirmance of a $134,092.00 attorney’s fees award (out of a requested $153,527.50) to the winning defendant

Class Actions/In The News: New York District Judge Approves $544.8 Million Fee Award In Visa/MasterCard Antitrust Merchant Class Action

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, In The News

  Court Utilizes “Sliding Scale” Percentage of Fund Approach, Checked by Lodestar With Multiplier. The Price?  Priceless.      After approving a settlement producing a $5.7 billion settlement fund in a class action case brought by merchants against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks relating to certain interchange rates, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson then had to

Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees: Landlord, Prevailing Party After Prior Appellate Reversal, Got Pretrial/Trial Work Reduced Based On Its Own Criticism Of Lessees’ Lodestar Request When They Were The Earlier Prevailing Parties Prior To Reversal

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  “Be Careful What You Ask For” Is the Theme Here, Despite a Reversal of Fortune.      Image 2000 Multimedia, Inc. v. Quinn, Case No. D061776 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 16, 2013) (unpublished) is a classic example of “be careful for what you ask for” during the case where there is a sudden reversal

Costs/Lodestar/Multiplier/Section 998: $989,258 Plaintiff Fee Award Affirmed Under Bane Act

Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Section 998

  Additional Costs Awards for Experts and Trial Technology Also Sustained.      In Bender v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B236294 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 9, 2013) (published), plaintiff won an excessive police force Bane Act suit, with the Bane Act containing a fee-shifting clause. The lower court also awarded $989,258 to plaintiff

Allocation/Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees: Former Employee Losing Wage/Hour Claims Hit With $150,519.36 Adverse Fee Award

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Hourly Rates by Defense Were Reasonable; No Apportionment Required.      Plaintiff, a former employee, sued defendant former employer for unpaid commissions, vacation time, and unreimbursed expenses, requesting an award of attorney’s fees upon prevailing under Labor Code sections 218.5 and 218.6 (wage/hour fee-shifting provisions). Plaintiff brought four causes of action, one of which was

Arbitration/Lodestar/Prevailing Party: Client Winning Fee Arbitration With “No More Payments Due” Did Prevail And Was Entitled To Post-Arbitration Confirmation/Vacation Fees Of $21,125

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Trial Court Did Not Err in Awarding A Higher Hourly Rate to Attorney Providing Postarbitration Services for Prevailing Client.      In Fuchs & Associates, Inc. v. Lesso, Case No. B241384 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 29, 2013) (unpublished), former attorneys sued client to collect a claimed additional $647,688 in unpaid fees under a retainer

Appealability/Fee Clause Interpretation/Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees/SLAPP: Appellate Trifecta On Fee Issues

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP

  Marathon Funding, LLC v. Paramount Pictures, Case No. B240723 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 4, 2013) (Unpublished).      In this first one, defendant won more than $690,548.90 in posttrial attorney’s fees under an investment agreement providing fees to the winner “in any action, suit, or other proceeding [that] is instituted concerning or arising out

Civil Rights/Lodestar/Multiplier: Lower Court Correctly Awarded $165,781 Fee Lodestar Rather Than Requested $2.169 Million

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

  Multipliers Also Correctly Denied.      After a decades long FEHA litigation involving multiple appeals and four litigation phases, partially winning plaintiff in Fotheringham v. Avery Dennison Corp., Case No. B238282 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 13, 2013) (unpublished) must have felt dismayed when the lower court awarded her only $165,781 in fees (out of

Lodestar/Multiplier/Private Attorney General/Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Catalyst Theory Fee Recovery Against Gambling Control Commission Affirmed, But Strikes Multiplier For “Fees On Fees” Work On Amount Of Fees

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Reconstructed Time Sheet Evidence Went Only to Weight, Not Admissibility Of Fee Submissions.      In Cates v. John Chiang, as State Controller, Case No. D060570 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 7, 2013) (published), plaintiff received $2,011,844 in fees under a private attorney general “catalyst theory” (lodestar at a blended hourly rate of $451 for

Scroll to Top