Cases: Lodestar

FEHA: 25% Of Requested Fees Awarded Based On Apportionment

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

Second District, Division 3 Sustains Application of Negative Multiplier Based on Plaintiff Prevailing On Only One of Four Claims.      The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. (FEHA), has a mandatory fee-shifting provision for prevailing plaintiffs. (Gov. Code, sec. 12965(b).) Nonetheless, it is tempered by mandating only awards of […]

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: Practitioners Should Get Higher Hourly Rates Based On Two Companion Ninth Circuit Decisions

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Federal Court of Appeals Determines That A Broader Relevant Market Study, Not Just Past LHWCA Awards, Is In Order.      The Ninth Circuit recently decided two decisions that will likely result in higher hourly rates in the lodestar analysis for practitioners submitting fee recovery requests in LHWCA cases, a result that follows from a past

Class Actions: Third District Publishes Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Case

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Decision Discussed in Our January 28, 2009 Post.      In our January 28, 2009 post, we discussed Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Case, where the Third District affirmed a $4 million class action fee award that represented 1.4% of the settlement fund recovery and a 2.52 multiplier enhancement on a $1.4 million lodestar.      Yesterday,

Out-of-State Attorneys: Don’t Despair—Ninth Circuit Holds You Can Get Paid As A Consultant Even Though You Are Not California Licensed Or Not Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Holding Draws A Sharp Dissent; Opinion Also Discusses Lodestar and Sufficiency of Fee Substantiation.      The next case should spur the interest of non-California lawyers wishing to do limited consultation or limited co-counseling with California lawyers in California federal courts. Even if you are not licensed in California or do not obtain pro hac vice

Private Attorney General Statute: Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court Award Of $43,410.20 To Winning Plaintiff

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

First District, Division 4 Rejects Plaintiff’s Bid To Capture Full $272,581.10 in Fees That Were Incurred, Applying a Negative Multipler Instead.      Plaintiff Tanzel won a facial constitutional attack and preemption challenge to a Richmond ordinance authorizing the city to seize and forfeit vehicles used to solicit prostitution or to buy drugs. In a prior

Class Action: Court Of Appeal Sustains 1.4% Fund Recovery And 2.52 Lodestar Multiplier In Consumer Class Action

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Third District Sustains Substantial Fee Award in Unpublished Decision.      Who says that class action attorneys are greedy? No matter what your bent, the next case is a refreshing example of how substantial fees are justified in a class action settlement generating substantial recovery for class members.

FEHA: Appellate Court Sustains 1.4-1.6 Multipliers To Plaintiffs’ Fee Awards

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar

Second District, Division 6 Rebuffs Challenges to FEHA Multipliers.      Plaintiffs winning claims under the California Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq., are normally awarded fee-shifting awards. Trial courts have ability to enhance the lodestar—the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate—by a multiplier in order

Fourth District, Division Three Affirms Attorney’s Fees Award In Two Real Estate Cases

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Seller Hit With Fees In a Water Accumulation Concealment Case; Neighbors Obtain Fees Against Neighbors In Tree Obstruction View Case.      In these interesting financial times, we find that real estate disputes still fester and produce interesting posts on attorney’s fees issues. The next two cases do not disappoint, originating from our local Santa Ana

CCP Section 1021.5: $403,548 Fee Award Sustained As Not Being Excessive In Nature

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

First District, Division Three Finds No Abuse of Discretion In Awarding Substantial Fees Under Section 1021.5.      Uphold Our Heritage, an organization of local citizens and architects/authors from around the world, successfully brought a mandamus action against Town of Woodside and Mr. Jobs, an individual seeking a permit to demolish the historic Jackling House (built

Scroll to Top