CC&R Count Justified Fees to County. We have told you before that HOA contests can be expensive. Yes, they can. Many times, very expensive for the losing HOA, which likely will have to pass losing fees through to homeowners via special assessments or other insolvency options. In County of Los Angeles v. La […]
Trial Court’s Lodestar Calculation and Failure to Apportion Were Correct. For those of you practicing employment law, you know by now that many of the Labor Code sections involving wage/hour and meal break violations carry mandatory fee-shifting statutes generally favoring the prevailing plaintiff. Usually, the battle is how much, what if, once liability
Second District, Division 4 Found No Error In Severely Reducing Lodestar And Not Applying a Multiplier. After plaintiff settled with several defendants for $100,000 on FEHA claims, the trial court then had to determine the fee recovery to plaintiff’s counsel. Three attorneys requested a total of $564,344.38 in fees (based on a 1.5 multiplier)
Second District, Division 8 Affirms $84,500 Fee Award to Prevailing Plaintiff in CLRA Action. After two appeals, plaintiff finally has won finality with respect to a $84,500 fee award entered in his favor under the CLRA after winning a battle against a Porsche Turbo Coupe seller for a refund because the car needed various repairs.
Second District, Division 6 Affirms $125,290 Fee Award in Action Where Plaintiff Settled For $126,000 on Various Counts. Settlement agreements are generally enforced by their terms, especially where they involve enforcement of public policy fee-shifting statutes. The next case demonstrates this principle very well. In Rodriguez v. Victoria Ventura Health Care LLC, Case
Both Sides Appealed the Fee Award, But The Trial Court’s Award Stood Firm. The Ralph Act (Civil Code, § 51.7) provides that all persons within California’s jurisdiction have the right to be free from violence or intimidation because of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status or sexual orientation
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 A117148 & A118566 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2010) (unpublished), pitted two different statutes against each other, both contained in the Rees-Levering Automobile and Sales Finance Act (ASFA), Civil Code section 2981 et
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
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
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”
