Acceptance Of A Reduced Rate From Client Does Not Preclude Attorney From Seeking A Reasonable Hourly Rate Pursuant To The Lodestar Method. In our June 10, 2021 post, we discussed Pasternack v. McCullough, Case No. B302137 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2021) which was unpublished at the time. Pasternack follows other California decisions […]
An Attorney Accepting A Reduced Rate From A Client Is Not Precluded From Seeking A Reasonable Hourly Rate Pursuant To The Lodestar Method. In Pasternack v. McCullough, Case No. B302137 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2021) (unpublished), prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike was awarded $146,010 out of his requested $330,420
Compensatory Award Was $575,000. Plaintiff did prevail on some wrongful termination/FEHA claims to the tune of $575,000 in past noneconomic damages. Plaintiff later moved to recoup $1,064,062.70 in fees (lodestar of $532,031.35 plus a 2.0 positive multiplier), with the trial judge awarding $400,800. Both sides appealed, with plaintiff filing a cross-appeal seeking more fees.
Apportionment Between Song-Beverly Act Fees/Costs And Other Causes Of Action, Where Fees Are Not Permitted, Not Necessary Where Claims Are Inextricably Intertwined. In our September 29, 2020 post, we discussed Santana v. FCA US, LLC, Case Nos. G057244/G058020 (4th Dist., Div. 3), which was unpublished at the time. In Santana,
Appellate Court Needed More Of A Justification For Such A Large “Haircut.” For readers who have followed us for some time, you would know that district judges in the Ninth Circuit have to explain “haircuts” from attorney’s fees requests which exceed 10% with some specificity. (See, e.g., Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d
Failure To Apportion/Double Counting Lodestar And Enhancement Arguments Not Supported By The Record. In many cases, a fees-seeking litigant needs to apportion between fee entitlement and non-fee entitlement claims, unless the thrust of the case involved a fee entitlement case so that it was inextricably intertwined with a non-fee case. If so, even a
Fees Award Should Not Get Offset Against Damages, And Trial Judge Awarded Contingency Arrangement Percentage As Fees—Dispensing With The Need For Review Of Detailed Bills. Prevailing plaintiff in Pham v. Nguyen, Case No. H044958 (6th Dist. Apr. 15, 2020) (unpublished), on the heels of winning $455,000 in damages, moved for contractual attorney’s fees. The
Petitioner’s Limited Success – Winning Only 1 Of Its 13 Arguments – Was Crucial Factor In Substantial Reduction From Requested $1,440,713 In Fees To $94,698.33 Even After 1.5 Multiplier Was Applied. The Sacramento-San Juaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 was enacted to address the problems and challenges facing the Delta – the most valuable
The Legal Principles Of Civil Code Section 1717 and Santisas Governed. Both parties appealed the fee results in Rusnak/South Bay v. Glukel Group, Case No. B286513 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 27, 2019) involving a dispute between landlord and tenant – with tenant plaintiff advancing contract and tort claims against landlord.
There Was Humor Here—Ninth Circuit Agreed Attorney Petitioning For Fees Was Ill-Advised To Put In A Declaration By A Hawaiian Plumber About What The Plumber Charged! As you will see, there is some underlying humor simmering in Roberts v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 16-16179 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2019) (published). What
