Cases: Lodestar

Employment, Lodestar, Multiplier, Record: Plaintiff Employee Obtaining $43,654.50 On Unpaid Commission Claim Awarded $58,341.50 Under Labor Code Fee-Shifting Statute

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Record

  Plaintiff Requested $212,287.50 (Inclusive Of A 1.5 Multiplier), But Lower Court’s Award Of A Reasonable Lodestar Was No Abuse of Discretion.      Plaintiff employee eventually obtained recovery of $43,654.50 in an unpaid commission dispute even though he at one point was willing to accept $75,000 to settle which included a $30,000 component to reimburse […]

Class Action/Lodestar: N.D. Ill. District Judge Provides Some Nice Clues On What To Claim Under Lodestar Analysis In Class Action Fee Request

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar

  Lodestar Was The Methodology In Statutory Fee-Shifting Matter.      Chief Judge Ruben Castillo of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, has provided a nice discussion and clues of what to include in a lodestar request in an attorney’s fees motion in a class action arising under a fee-shifting statute, namely, the Magnuson-Moss

Lodestar/Civil Rights: Sixth District Reverses Civil Rights Fee Award, 80% Of Requested Amount, Based On Trial Judge’s Failure To Provide A Meaningful Explanation Of The Reduction

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar

  Court of Appeal Applies Ninth Circuit’s Gates And Moreno Decisions.            Getting a haircut.  Camp Shelby.  1941.  William Perlitch, photographer.  Library of Congress.    Kerkeles v. City of San Jose, Case No. H040915 (6th Dist. Dec. 18, 2015) (published) is a significant 2015 end-of-the year decision, where an appellate court adopted the Ninth Circuit’s

Class Action, Common Fund, and Lodestar: Court Of Appeal Affirms Judgment Awarding Plaintiffs’ Attorneys 37.5 Percent Of Settlement Fund

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Lodestar

  High Percentage Of Common Fund That Is Much Lower Than Lodestar Is Reasonable Way To Calculate Fee Award In Class Action.      A fee award to plaintiffs’ attorneys of 37.5% of the settlement fund may seem generous.  Indeed, it seemed too generous to objectors in Roos v. Honeywell International and Rogers, A142156 (1/1 Nov.

In The News . . . . N.D. Cal. District Judge Lucy Koh Approves “No Poaching” Antitrust Class Action Settlement, Awarding $40,043,932.50 In Fees To Class Counsel

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, In The News

  Award Was Less Than Half Of $81 Million Request, Using Lodestar Billings Augmented By Positive 2.2 Multiplier.     On September 2, 2015, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California gave final approval to a class action settlement by high tech workers challenging on antitrust grounds a “no poaching” pact reached

Lodestar, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees: Save Our Uniquely Rural Decision Certified For Publication

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

  Deals With Multiple Issues After Lower Court Awarded Only $19,176 Out Of Requested $231,000 In Fees.      In our March 19, 2015 post, we discussed the unpublished decision of Save Our Uniquely Rural v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. E059521 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 18, 2015). We now can update: the decision

Lodestar, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Did Not Err By Awarding $19,176 Out Of Requested $231,098 In Fees Under Private Attorney General Statute To Prevailing Plaintiff

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

  Limited Success, Excessive Hourly Rates, and Excessive Work Led To Reductions, Although Court Disagrees With One Aspect Of Gorman Decision.      In Save Our Uniquely Rural Community Environment v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. E059524 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 18, 2015) (unpublished), a CEQA plaintiff, a non-profit opposing the development of an

Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Court’s Award Of $780,660.80 Out Of Requested $3,639,238.31 To FEHA Prevailing Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal, Where Plaintiff Recovered $663,983

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Lack of Detailed Reasoning Did Not Translate Into Abuse of Discretion, With Lower Court Having Plenty of Ammunition To Lower Requested Fees.      We know that the law in many fee-shifting areas says that awarded fees do not have to be proportional to the ultimate damages awarded, especially in civil rights or consumer areas.

Lodestar, Multiplier, Private Attorney General, Reasonableness Of Fees, Substantiation Of Fees: Plaintiff’s Attorneys Garner $721,994.81 In Fee Recovery For Successfully Arguing City Of Los Angeles Could Not “Outsource” Initial Review Of

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

  However, Many of the Nonstatutory Costs Were Taxed.      Although we do not often post about trial court decisions involving fees and costs, Caleb Marker of Ridout Lyon + Ottoson, LLP in Long Beach sent us copies of the fees and costs rulings in Weiss v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC141354 (L.A.

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 998: Prevailing Attorneys In Collection Suit Against Ex-Client Sustain $1.532M Fee Award And $123K Expert Witness Fee Award On Appeal When Attorneys Recovered Base Collection

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 998

  Fees Clause Was Broadly Worded, Former Attorneys Represented Client In Seven Suits, and Section 998 Rejection Gave Rise to Expert Witness Fee Award.      This next opinion, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP v. Lujan, Case No. A139863 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 19, 2015) (published), is must reading for both litigants and attorneys involved

Scroll to Top