Cases: Lodestar

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

Common Fund/Multipliers: Recent Vioxx Products Liability Decision Has “Must Reading” Discussion of Common Fund Theory

Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

  Case Discusses It in Class Action and MDL Complex Litigation Contexts, Also Indicating Perdue Decision Did Not Apply to Using Lodestar as Check on Percentage of Recovery Fee Award.      For those practitioners dealing with cases where a common fund is created (from which fee awards are frequently sought), we came across a case

Lodestar/Private Attorney General Statute: Negative Multiplier Based On Perception Fee-Owing Government Agency Could Use Money To Fund Ongoing Operations Was No Reason To Reduce Lodestar

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

  Second District, Division 8 Believed Financial Factor Could Be Considered Based on Settlement Agreement, But Did Not Beiieve Ongoing Operational “Cut” Rationale Was Justified.      A redevelopment agency in Rogel v. Lynwood Redevelopment Agency, Case No. B219626 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 2, 2011) (certified for publication) was exposed to up to $2.7 million

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Lodestar: Lodestar Method Used To Determine Reasonable Fee Recovery to Prevailing Claimant In U.S. Civil Forfeiture Proceeding

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Fee Agreement Can Be Taken Into Account But Payment Goes to Client, Ninth Circuit Holds in a 2-1 Opinion.      So far today, 2-1 appellate opinions have been the entrees on the menu in the fee area.      The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, at 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1)(A), makes the U.S. liable for

Civil Rights/Lodestar/Allocation: Appellate Court Affirms Decision To Award $1,000 Winning Plaintiffs Fees Of $60,400 Out Of A Requested $566,510

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar

  Trial Court Had Discretion to Reduce Lodestar, Parsing Out Unsuccessful Claim Fee Work.      This next case describes the discretion allowed trial courts in calculating the lodestar as well as a nice job by the defense in mitigating fee exposure by providing the trial court with a basis for awarding fees only on successful

Class Action/Lodestar/Multiplier: First District, Division 1 Affirms $1,664,777.48 Fee Award, Using A 1.4 Multiplier, When Total Damages/Interest Award Was About $1.2 Milliion

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

  Requested 2.0 Multiplier Scaled Back to 1.4.      Just to show you how class action fee awards can often be larger than the damages awards in protracted, contentious cases, we now digest Alcoser v. Thomas, Case Nos. A124848 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 16, 2011) (unpublished).      There, a tenant successfully won

Allocation/Reasonableness Of Fees/Special Fee Shifting Statutes/Lodestar/Multiplier/Costs/Standard Of Review: Lower Court Did Abuse Discretion In Awarding Certain Expenses As Fees, In Failing To Allocate, And In Applying A Multiplier

Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Standard of Review

Abuse of Discretion Standard Did Not Prevent Reversal When Record Showed Errors, According to Sixth District.      In an interesting contrast to the way the abuse of discretion standard was deferentially applied in our contemporaneous post in Murrell v. Rolling Hills Community Association, the Sixth District found that the trial court abused its discretion in

Lodestar/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Lodestar, Not Cost-Plus Method, Governs Fee Recovery Under Special Red Light Abatement Fee Shifting Statute

Cases: Costs, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  First District, Division 4 Finds McCullough Reasoning Inapt; Also Refuses to Upset Cost Award to City in Separate Appeal.      In City of Santa Rosa v. Patel, Case Nos. A124199/A124452 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 21, 2010) (certified for publication), City of Santa Rosa prevailed in a red light abatement action and was awarded

Scroll to Top