Cases: Lodestar

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Awarding Fresno Rates To Attorney Litigating In Orange County And Slashing Fees/Cost Request By 82.9% Had Its Award Reversed And Remanded On Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Venue Rates Had To Be Used And The Substantial “Haircut” Needed More Explanation.                What happened in Tidrick v. FCA US LLC, Case No. G063186 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2025) (unpublished) is that lemon law plaintiffs requesting $82,719.33 in fees and costs ($74,275 in fees and $8,444.33 in costs) were only awarded a […]

Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: 2/5 DCA Publishes Blockbuster Opinion On Whether Federal Standard Of Heightened Scrutiny Of Fee Awards In Certain Cases Applies To California State Court Cases

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

In A 2-1 Opinion, Majority Holds The Federal Standards Are Inconsistent With The State Standard Giving The Trial Judge The Power To Adjudge Based On His/Her Experience.                We were wondering when an appellate court would take on a split in intermediate appellate thinking on whether across-the-board reductions for unreasonable padding, duplicative work, and unnecessary

Lodestar, Multipliers: Lower Court’s Reducing Hours/Hourly Rate For Two Attorneys/One Paralegal And Not Applying A Positive Multiplier Was No Abuse Of Discretion In Routine FEHA Employment Case

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Trial Judge Applied The Correct Lodestar And Multiplier Factors, Awarding Plaintiff’s Attorneys $1,054,494 In Fees Under FEHA.                In Young v. Dept. of Public Social Services, Case No. B329748 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 6, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff won $3.5 million in damages on a retaliation claim, but plaintiff’s attorneys sought a $1.498 million lodestar

Lodestar: $958,297 Fee Award, Inclusive Of A 1.5 Multiplier, Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Lodestar

However, The Opinion Does Introduce Fuzziness On The Geographical Community For Lodestar Analysis Purposes.                In Hoglund v. Sierra Nevada Memorial-Miners Hospital, Case No. C097065 (3d Dist. May 17, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion published), plaintiff won a case with FEHA claims against defendant, obtaining a $958,297, inclusive of a 1.5 multiplier, out of a

Costs, Fees On Fees, Lodestar: Fee Award Reversed Because Unavailability Of Out-Of-Venue Counsel Should Have Been Considered, 30% Reduction For Pre-Trial Settlement Efforts Was Unwarranted, And Fees On Fees For Reply Work Should Have Been Considered

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fees on Fees, Cases: Lodestar

However, Denial Of Expert Witness Fees As Costs For Non-Court Ordered Witness Was No Abuse Of Discretion.                In California Open Lands v. Butte County Dept. of Public Works, Case No. C097297 (3d Dist. Mar. 4, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff reached a settlement with a county government in a conservation easement case with Clean Air Act

Laffey Matrix, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Erred By Too Drastically Cutting Prevailing Party Contractual Fee Request From Around $700,000 To $198,445

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Lower Court Did Not Support Reduced Hourly Rate And Substantial Time Cuts. Free haircut on Saturday morning in W.M. Scott's general store. Farrington. Chatham County, North Carolina. Library of Congress. Marion Post Wolcott, photographer.  September 1940.             Based on the Ninth Circuit’s Moreno decision which we have cited many times, federal courts in California need

Lodestar; Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In Two MRL Cases, Fees And Costs Affirmed In One Case, But A “Quarterling Approach” To Fee Reduction Required A Remand In The Other Case

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Mobile Home Park Owner Entitled To Prevailing Party Fee Recovery For Obtaining Free And Clear Ownership After A Public Sale Of An Abandoned Lot Where Lease Fees Were Owed.             In this post, we summarize two lengthy fees/costs decisions arising under Civil Code section 798.85, the fees/costs shifting provision of the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL). 

Ethics, Lodestar, Multipliers: Lower Court Properly Applied A .4 Negative Multiplier To A FEHA Fee Request Based On Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Incivility Throughout The Litigation

Cases: Ethics, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

2/3 DCA Agreed With The Reasoning In Karton.             More and more, we are seeing appellate opinions, whether published or not, stressing the need for civility among attorneys in litigation cases.  In fact, there are proposals being considered which would require that California attorneys, annually, have to reaffirm their oath and to confirm they will

Lodestar, Prevailing Party: Reversal Of Judgment For Cross-Complainant And Increased Recovery For Plaintiffs Made Plaintiffs The Prevailing Party So A Fee Order Remand Was Necessary

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Prevailing Party

Given Some Reductions For The Cross-Complaint And Other Issues, Fee Award Had To Be Reassessed—Initial Award Was $388,541, A 50% Reduction From The Original Request.             In Perera v. Moine, Case No. B319315 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 18, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiffs were the prevailing party in a breach of contract dispute (based on an

Scroll to Top