Cases: Lodestar

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 D053864/D054433 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 9, 2010) (unpublished), mobilehome purchasers did well in a Song-Beverly Act Warranty Act suit with a mandatory fee-shifting statute in favor of prevailing plaintiffs.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

Special Fee Shifting Provisions: Settlement Agreement Allowing For Patients’ Rights Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Ralph Act: $456,705 Fee Award To Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal

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

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

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

Scroll to Top