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 […]
Part 2 of 2 – We Finish Off With The Last Five Cases And An “Honorable Mention” Oh, the suspense … and the ball has not yet dropped from above Times Square. You have to go to our prior post to see the first part of this list. Here is the rest of
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
