$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 […]
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
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
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
First District, Division 1 Suggests Trial Courts Should Explain Multiplier Determinations With Some Specificity. For all of you attorneys practicing in areas that may trigger application of the private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5), the next case will be of great interest. Not only does it highlight some discrepancies in
In a Split Opinion, Second District, Division 6 Rejects Plaintiff’s Requested $24,871.75 In Light of His Recovery of $4,000 Minimum Statutory Damages. In cases involving mandatory fee-shifting statutes (such as the Unruh Act, Civil Code section 52(a)), we have seen an emerging theme that encompasses a large number of attorney’s fees recoveries: the
PLCM Is the Leading Case Under Civil Code Section 1717, And Likely In Other Contexts. We would like to thank Michael J. Ireland, General Counsel of Majestic Investment Group in Woodland Hills, for this message: “I don’t know if there are many of us out there, but I would like to see cases discussing
Issue Is Whether District Judges Can Enhance Lodestar Based Solely on Quality of Attorney Performance and Results Obtained Under Federal Fee-Shifting Statute. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on an attorney’s fees issues that has generated a split among federal appellate courts on whether district judges can enhance lodestars based solely on
First District, Division 4 Sustains Fee Award of $676,001 Based on a 1.25 Multiplier, Rather than Plaintiff’s Requested $940,590.87 Lodestar Plus a Proposed 2.0 Multiplier. The First District, Division 4, in the unpublished decision of Tarver v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. A116731 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 23, 2009) (unpublished),
First District, Division Two Sustains Lower Court’s Application of 1.5 Multiplier. Labor Code section 218.5 authorizes a mandatory award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in any action for nonpayment of wages if any party requests fees and costs upon initiation of the action. Labor Code section 1194(a) mandates an award of reasonable
