Cases: Lodestar

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 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 16, 2011) (unpublished).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

Lodestar: Second Time Around, Fourth District, Division 2 Sustains Lodestar Analysis Of Trial Court In Awarding $959,925 In Fees

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Trial Judge Also Correctly Awarded Interest on Fee Award and $193,800 In Appellate Attorney’s Fees.      McCasland v. Beckman, Case No. E049166 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 10, 2010) (unpublished) (McCasland II) is the second group of appeals addressing attorney’s fees awarded to winners of a contract dispute, after the appellate court affirmed the merits

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Losing Plaintiff In Unsuccessful Overtime/Meal Break Superior Court Action Required To Pay Attorney’s Fees Of $28,731.25 To Employer

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division Two Finds Fee Motion Timely and Fee Award Reasonable in Amount.      In Cun v. Café Tiramisu, Case No. A124985 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 7, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiff ex-employee lost a superior court FLSA action following a de novo Labor Commissioner hearing in which she claimed to have not been paid

Equity: Common Fund Debate . . . . Lodestar Or Percentage Of Recovery . . . . U.S. District Court Opts For Lodestar

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Equity, Cases: Lodestar

USDJ Chooses Lodestar in Wage/Hour Class Action Fee Recovery Settlement.      Our friend and fellow blogger H. Scott Leviant has reported on Anderson v. Nextel Retail Stores in his June 30, 2010 post at The Complex Litigator website.      There, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson, in a common fund wage/hour class action settlement, chose the

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act: Van Skike And Christensen Followed In Recent Ninth Circuit Unpublished Memorandum Decision

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  ALJ Determination Based On Lower Fee Rates From Prior LHWCA Cases Rejected by Ninth Circuit.      In our March 9, 2009 post, we explored two Ninth Circuit companion opinions, Van Skike v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 557 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2009) and Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs. Of Am., 557 F.3d 1049

Civil Rights Multipliers: U.S. Supreme Court Narrows Use Of Enhancements In Federal Civil Rights Case

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

Lodestar Should Capture the Usual Fee Recovery; Federal Judges Must Provide a Reasonably Specific Explanation for All Aspects of a Fee Determination. At least in the area of federal civil rights cases (although the opinion may have broader applicability), the U.S. Supreme Court has issued an important decision relating to fee enhancements in Perdue v.

Class Actions: Lodestar/Multiplier Determinations Remanded In Private Attorney General Statute Fee Award

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

Court of Appeal Also Decides Prejudgment Interest Not Allowable on Fee Awards.      Okay, so who says we don’t try to give you readers a synopsis of decisions (even though some might be a little wordy)? The next decision—Woosley v. State of California, Case No. B209890 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 16, 2010) (unpublished)—involves some

FEHA: $445,000 Fee Recovery Out Of Requested $1.5 Million Fee Request Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Standard of Review

Plaintiff Does Not Convince Appellate Court to Award More, With Fourth District, Division Commenting on Some “Cutting Edge” Substantive Questions.      Although the next case could be viewed as just a simple abuse of discretion case, it actually discusses some interesting tensions between federal and state cases on the specificity of reasoning that must be

Scroll to Top