Cases: Lodestar

Rees-Levering Automobile And Sales Finance Act: First District Affirms Fee Recovery Lodestar Of $83,346 For Lead Attorney, But Rejects 1.5 Multiplier

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

  Court of Appeal Also Rejects Asymmetrical Interpretation of Fee-Shifting Provision.      The next case, Alarcon v. Fireside Bank, Case Nos. A117148 & A118566 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2010) (unpublished), pitted two different statutes against each other, both contained in the Rees-Levering Automobile and Sales Finance Act (ASFA), Civil Code section 2981 et […]

FEHA Award: Court Of Appeal Affirms $84,000 Fee Award Out Of Requested $686,290.50

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

Plaintiff Only Won $55,000 Jury Verdict Plus $18,000 in Costs.      Although awards to winning plaintiffs under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act are encouraged, they must be reasonable in amount. Otherwise, the trial court has broad discretion to deny them in entirety or substantially chop them down from their higher requests. The next

Private Attorney General Fee Award: $423,975 Award In First Impression Case Of Difficulty Affirmed

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

  First District, Division 1 Rejects State’s Challenges to Amount of Fee Award.      In an earlier appeal, certain plaintiffs successfully enjoined enforcement of certain legislation allowing for incarceration for drug-related probations violations because such a sanction was inconsistent with Proposition 36 (the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000). Plaintiffs also successfully defended

Civil Rights: EEOC Stung With $4,560,285.11 Fee/Costs Award In Title VII Section Suit Found To Be Groundless By Iowa U.S. District Judge

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

Court Discusses Substantive Fee Shifting Statute, Lodestar Factors, and Non-Cost Expense Reimbursement Issues in Recent Decision.       EEOC v. Boot, Case No. 07-CV-95-LLR (N.D. Iowa Feb. 9, 2010 Order), is an unusual decision where a United States district judge awarded $4,560,285.11 in fees and costs (broken down as $4,004,371.65 in fees, $463,071.25 in “non-cost”

Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Chacon Opinion – Involving San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance – Is Published.

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

       In our January 19, 2010 post, we examined Chacon v. Litke, Case Nos. A122026 & A123889 (1st Dist., Div. 2 published Feb. 8, 2010), which was unpublished at the time. This decision established that the lodestar analysis was the presumptive method for gauging special fee-shifting provisions, including those enacted under governmental ordinances. On

Rent Stabilization Ordinance: Winning Plaintiffs In Wrongful Eviction Action Awarded $306,321.50 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Lodestar Is the Standard, and Attorney Still Entitled to Lodestar Fees Even Where Client Agreement Was Below Market or Discounted in Nature. The lodestar method is the one used most often by trial courts in awarding both attorney’s fees under contractual provisions and fee-shifting statutes. What about county ordinances containing fee-shifting sections? Answer: lodestar also.

Class Actions: Class Action Fee Settlement Remanded Because Trial Judge Failed To Use Lodestar Method

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar

  $20,000 Fee Award Reversed Where Class Action Attorney Requested $263,606 in Fees.      The next case illustrates that California courts generally require use of the lodestar method in non-common fund cases. Trial judges cannot simply use the common fund method in a case that really isn’t a fund case; in these instances, the lodestar

Fee Substantiation: Plaintiff’s Declaration About Hourly Rates And Small Law Firm Survey Deemed Sufficient Substantiation For Fee Request, Especially Given No Challenge By The Defense

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Third District Also Addresses Clerical Time and Multiplier Issues.      Plaintiff won a jury verdict of $16,536 on a failure to accommodate discrimination claim. Under the fee-shifting provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Government Code section 12965(b)), the trial court awarded plaintiff $189,503.40 in fees, after lodestar deductions for clerical tasks, duplicative

Class Actions: $3 Million Fee/Costs Award Affirmed in B&P Section 17200 Consumer Privacy Class Action Against Bank of America

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar

First District, Division 5 Rejects Clear Sailing Clause/Class Counsel Conflict Challenges to Fee Award.      In the next case that we review, the Court of Appeal dealt with “clear sailing clauses” in class action settlements and the claim that class counsel conflicts in obtaining fees need “structural” review. The appellate panel found that these clauses

Private Attorney General Statute: Trial Court Properly Awarded Plaintiffs $336,350 In Fees Rather Than Requested $1.49 Million (And Correctly Denied 2.0 Multiplier)

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

First District, Division 5 Determines Trial Court Properly Applied Serrano III Factors.      Even under fee-shifting, public interest statutes, our California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 255, 49 (1977) (Serrano III) mandated that multiple factors be used to increase or decrease a lodestar figure requested by victorious litigants. In the next case

Scroll to Top