Cases: Lodestar

Homeowner Associations, Lodestar: $52,076 Fee Award To Prevailing Homeowner In Director Election Challenge Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Lodestar

Lack Of Reporter’s Transcript Meant There Was An Inadequate Record, But The Lower Court Correctly Applied Lodestar Principles In Fashioning An Award. Plaintiff homeowner successfully challenged an HOA board of directors election in Cruschen v. Annandale Townhouse Assn., Case No. B341189 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 24, 2025) (unpublished), although not winning some of his […]

Laffey Matrix, Lodestar, SLAPP:  SLAPP Fee Award, At Hourly Rates Higher Than Billed Rates, Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: SLAPP

Lower Discounted Rates Are Not Preclusive On Lodestar Fee Award By Lower Court, With Laffey Matrix Not Having To Be Blindly Followed. O’Hill Capital v. Phillips, Case Nos. G063268 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 10, 2025) (unpublished), involved a SLAPP grant to defendants, which triggered a mandatory fee award—if the fees requested were

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees:  Trial Judge Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Awarding Almost $4.9 Million In Attorney’s Fees To Successful FEHA Plaintiff

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Defense Litigating Long And Hard, If Unsuccessful, Can Anticipate Large Fee Award Against It. Bronshteyn v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs, Case No. B329890, et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 17, 2025) (published) illustrates how a defendant litigating hard by bringing multiple unsuccessful motions, prosecuting an unsuccessful merits appeal, and rejecting a lower CCP section

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers: Plaintiffs Prevailing On Wage Claims Were Properly Awarded $1,767,649.50 In Attorney’s Fees As Against Employer

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Although Reducing The Requested Hourly Rates For Sonoma County, The Rest Of The Lodestar Request And 1.5 Positive Multiplier Request Were Affirmed.                In Pelayo v. Utility Partners of America, LLC, Case No. A171211 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 7, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff employees settled with employer, after contentious litigation on the eve of trial,

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Tidrick Opinion Now Published

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

Substantial Reduction Needed To Be Restudied.                On June 29, 2025, we posted on Tidrick v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. G063186 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 22, 2025) (now published), but unpublished at the time.  It basically reversed a fee award based on not using venue-based hourly rates and after making what the appellate

Homeowner Associations, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: $125,000 Attorney’s Fees Award To Plaintiff Adjacent Property Owner For HOA Encroaching On His Easement Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Both Sides Appealed The Fee Award, But It Was Affirmed In Entirety.                After an adjacent property owner and HOA settled an easement dispute in which $350,000 was paid to plaintiff, an attorney’s fees motion based on the settlement agreement contractual fees clause was partially granted in plaintiff’s favor.  Plaintiff moved for $164,258.50 in fees,

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

Scroll to Top