Cases: Lodestar

In The News . . . Two Federal Court Of Appeals Decisions Use Different Methods To Fix Attorney’s Fees In Class Actions

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

  Third Circuit Sustains Using Percentage of Recovery Method, “Cross Checked” By Lodestar Analysis, In Setting Class Action Counsel Fees.      In Dewey v. Volkswagen of America Inc., Case Nos. 13-1123/1124 (3d Cir. Feb. 12, 2014) (not published/not precedential), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sustained a $9,207,248 attorney’s fees award to class action counsel […]

Consumer Statutes/Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees: Ford’s Oral Opposition To Lemon Law Fee Request Was Unsuccessful As Was Subsequent Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Ford Motor Hit With $50,574.19 Lemon Law Jury Verdict, And Then Hit Again With $342,540.25 In Fees As Well As Costs/Expenses On Top.      Many California consumer statutes, like the lemon laws, have mandatory fee-shifting statutes. Frequently, a winning plaintiff can obtain fee awards that are many times a multiplier of the underlying merits

Civil Rights/Costs/Lodestar: FEHA Winning Plaintiff Entitled To Almost $88,500 In Costs, But Trial Court Utilized Incorrect Lodestar Analysis On Reasonable Hourly Rate And Determining Hours Worked When Awarding $484,687.50 Out Of Requested $1,675,627.50

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar

  Matter Remanded for Re-fixing of Fees Award.      Plaintiff winning a California Family Rights Act, some FEHA, and two common law claims—obtaining a jury verdict of $287,400–moved to recover about $95,000 in routine costs and $1,675,627.50 in fees enhanced by a 2.0 positive multiplier for well over $3 million in requested fees. The trial

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

Scroll to Top