Cases: Lodestar

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act: Van Skike And Christensen Followed In Recent Ninth Circuit Unpublished Memorandum Decision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 The next decision—Woosley v. State of California, Case No. B209890 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 16, 2010) (unpublished)—involves some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

Lemon Law: $170,000 Attorney Fee Recovery Sustained In Song-Beverly Act Case Involving Mobilehome

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fourth District, Division 1 Sustains Lower Court Determination Based on Its Experience With Hourly Rates.      In Cauchon v. Forest River, Inc., Case Nos. D053864/D054433 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 9, 2010) (unpublished), mobilehome purchasers did well in a Song-Beverly Act Warranty Act suit with a mandatory fee-shifting statute in favor of prevailing plaintiffs. Purchasers

Section 1717 And Unlicensed Contractor: No One Is Happy About $2,000 Fee Recovery

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

Award Is Sustained, But Winning Subcontractor Under Contract With Fees Clause Fights Back Unlicensed General Contractor’s Illegality Argument.      Usually, under our category “Unlicensed Contractors,” we are dealing with decisions where an unlicensed contractor wins a dispute with a fees clause and attempts to obtain an award of attorney’s fees—not very successfully. In the next

Homeowner Associations: $783,944 Awarded to L.A. County As Winner In Public Hiking/Equestrian Trail CC&R Contest With HOA

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Lodestar

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

Lodestar/Multiplier: 5 Employees Winning $40,000 Settlement For Labor Code Violations Are Awarded $164,421.16 In Statutory Fees and Costs

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

  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

Scroll to Top