Cases: Lodestar

Class Actions: $3 Million Fee/Costs Award Affirmed in B&P Section 17200 Consumer Privacy Class Action Against Bank of America

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar

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

Private Attorney General Statute: Trial Court Properly Awarded Plaintiffs $336,350 In Fees Rather Than Requested $1.49 Million (And Correctly Denied 2.0 Multiplier)

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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

Private Attorney General Statute: Lodestar Fee Award Affirmed, But Multiplier Determination Remanded For Further Consideration

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

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

Unruh Act: Court Of Appeal Affirms $12,436 Attorney’s Fees Award Based On Limited Success Of Plaintiff

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

  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

Cases Under Review: U.S. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari To Resolve Split On Fee Enhancements

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar

  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

FEHA: Court of Appeal Affirms Award Of Lower Fee Award To Winning Plaintiff

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

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),

Labor Code Violations: Trial Court Award Of $236,760 To A Single Prevailing Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

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

Scroll to Top