Cases: Lodestar

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      Image 2000 Multimedia, Inc. v. Quinn, Case No. D061776 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 16, 2013) (unpublished) is a classic example of “be careful for what you ask for” during the case where there is a sudden reversal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      In Fuchs & Associates, Inc. v. Lesso, Case No. B241384 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 29, 2013) (unpublished), former attorneys sued client to collect a claimed additional $647,688 in unpaid fees under a retainer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

In The News/Discovery . . . . Duking It Out In District Court: Boxer Floyd Mayweather, Jr. Ordered To Pay $113,518.50 In Fees To Boxer Emmanuel Pacquiao As Discovery Sanctions For Failing To Attend A Deposition

Cases: Lodestar, In The News

  Lodestar for National Firm Lawyers Representing Athletes Concededly May Be Higher In Nature and Justification.      We can report that U.S. District Judge Larry R. Hicks of the District of Nevada has filed an interesting discovery sanctions order involving attorney’s fees in Pacquiao v. Mayweather, Case No. 2:09-cv-2448-LRH-RJJ (Doc. 240, filed 9/17/12).      In

Lodestar/Multiplier/Postjudgment Enforcement Interest: Published Decision Considers When Interest Runs On California State Fee Awards

Cases: Interest, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

  Also Rejects Application of Perdue v. Kenny A. To State Cases Involving Lodestar Multipliers.      Khazan v. Braynin, Case No. A128536 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 30, 2012) (certified for partial publication; fee interest issue published) is an interesting decision that has a scholarly discussion on when interest begins to run on a fee

Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees: Two Drastic Haircut Fee Decisions–One Reversed And One Affirmed

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Justice Bedsworth Gives Us Two Fee Case “Gems.”      Justice Bedsworth, who sits on the Fourth District, Division 3 (the venue where co-contributors Marc and Mike are based practice-wise), has written two interesting decisions on lodestar/reasonableness of fees. Both involved trial court decisions dramatically cutting fee requests. On appeal, one got reversed and the other

Scroll to Top