Cases: Lodestar – Page 15 – Cal Attorneys Fees

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

November 15, 2008

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 […]

Court of Appeal Reverses 88% “Haircut” In Fee Award to Landlord in ADA Indemnity Dispute With Tenant

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

November 10, 2008

Fourth District, Division One Rules That Lower Court May Have Not Used Proper Lodestar Determination Factors in Drastically Cutting Fee Request, Suggesting It Parts Company From Reasoning in The Second District’s EnPalm Decision. Notwithstanding the breadth of the abuse of discretion standard, the next case illustrates that appellate court will overturn fee awards

Proofread Your Work: Submission of Subpar Written Papers Or Sloppy Work Product Can Lead To A Reduction In Fees

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

October 12, 2008

Transylvania Feral Court Slashes Attorney’s Fees Award Drastically For Spoor Work Product. Although we usually confine our posts to California-oriented cases, settlements, or fee issues, the following fee reduction ruling by a Philadelphia-based federal district judge was too good to pass up and also offers some sobering lessons to practitioners seeking fee awards when

Two Winning Civil Rights Plaintiffs’ $421,357 Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Standard of Review

October 11, 2008

Court of Appeal Sustains $336,800 Lodestar Plus 0.25 Multiplier. Two high school freshmen sued the Poway School District, a principal, and an assistant principal, alleging various federal and state civil rights violations arising out of failure to quell peer sexual orientation harassment of an anti-gay nature. Following a jury trial, the two plaintiffs were

Trial Court Correctly Denied A Multiplier In Sexual Harassment Case Against Ralphs Grocery

Cases: Lodestar

October 2, 2008

Court of Appeal Also Refuses to Create a New Rule Requiring A Statement of Decision in an Attorney’s Fee Proceeding. Plaintiffs in a sexual harassment contingency case against Ralphs Grocery won substantial compensatory and punitive damage awards through years of contentious litigation. After over ten years of litigation, plaintiffs moved for

Breaking News: Supreme Court Denies Review of Harman v. City and County of San Francisco

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

June 23, 2008

Denial of Writ of Certiorari Leaves Court of Appeal Opinion – and Fee Award — Intact. On June 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition for writ of certiorari for San Francisco v Harman, Allen. —S.Ct.—, 2008 WL 1955817 (U.S. Cal.), 76 USLW 3611.

DERIVATION OF THE USE OF “LODESTAR”—A STRANGE TERM STILL USED. BUT WITH A MURKY FUTURE.

Cases: Lodestar

June 7, 2008

Use of Lodestar Goes Back to 1973 Third Circuit Opinion, With Recent Second Circuit Opinion Actually Abandoning Its Use In Some Contexts. “Lodestar” is a much used term in fee proceedings, referring to the product of the attorney’s usual hourly rate and the number of hours expended on behalf of a client.