Cases: Lodestar

Landlord/Tenant; Lodestar; Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Two Fee Orders Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Lodestar

Trial Judge Failed To Honor Voluntary Dismissal By Plaintiffs In Awarding Fees To Defense, While Lower Court Failed To Utilize Lodestar Methodology In Awarding Reduced Fees To Plaintiffs Under Settlement Agreement.             Duncan v. Nathan, Case No. A147468 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 5, 2018) (unpublished) involved a landlord-tenant dispute involving claims for negligence, quiet

Civil Rights, Lodestar, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees:  Trial Judge Properly Cut Lodestar By 25%, And Applied A 1.5 Positive Multiplier, For Total Fee Award Of $752,925.92 In Case Garnering Compensatory Damages Of $625,000 To Plaintiff

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

Trial Judge Also Properly Awarded $15,000 Supplemental Fees For Posttrial Work.             For those of you not practicing in the employment/FEHA area, civil rights plaintiffs in disability/harassment/failure to accommodate cases are entitled to recovery of attorney’s fees under a pro-plaintiff statutory fee-shifting provision to be construed liberally to allow plaintiff full compensation for prevailing in

Lodestar:  Non-Prevailing Parties’ Failure To Properly Present Financial Information To Diminish Lodestar Request Sustained Large Fee Award

Cases: Lodestar

Appellants Failed To Follow Trial Court Options, Or Ask For Sealing Of Financial Records Under Applicable California Rules Of Court.             After a prior appeal in which the reviewing court remanded a sanctions/fee award to consider what causes of action it related to and also consider the financial circumstances of appellants as far as the

Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees:  $262,400 Fee Award In Real Estate Misrepresentation Case Won By Defendant Sellers Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Various Lodestar Challenges Are Rejected In Unpublished Portion of Opinion.             In RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi, Case Nos. A143781/A145029 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2017) (partially published; fee discussion not published), the trial and appellate courts confronted a plaintiff misrepresentation action relating to its purchase of a residence with a vineyard/wine tasting building

Class Action, Common Fund, Employment, Lodestar, Multiplier:  N.D. Cal. District Judge Ilston Awards Wage/Hour Class Action Counsel $15,200,002.90 In Hybrid Statutory Fee/Common Fund Case Against Wal-Mart

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

District Judge Confronts Multiple Issues In Reaching Fee Award.             U.S. District Judge Susan Ilston in Ridgeway v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-05221-SI (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2017 Doc. #606) confronted numerous issues in deciding the appropriate award to class counsel in a truck driver employee class action case against Wal-Mart for wage hour

Lodestar: Percentage Of Recovery Fee And Incentive Awards Reversed By Tenth Circuit

Cases: Lodestar

Lodestar Method Should Have Been Used Instead. North Star.  Photo:  Udo Kugel.  2001. Wikipedia.  Public domain.         Chieftan Royalty Co. v. Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-A, No. 16-6022  (10th Cir. July 3, 2017) (published) was a class action based on diversity jurisdiction where a district judge awarded class counsel fees and a class representative an incentive

Class Action/Lodestar: Recent 2017 Article Suggests N.D. Cal. Federal District Judges Are Using Lodestar Rather Than Percentage Of Recovery Fee Methodology In Class Action Mega Settlement Cases

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar

Three Federal Judges Opted To Use Lodestar Method In Recent Cases.         National Association of Legal Fee Analysis (NALFA) recently summarized a recent Reuters article suggesting that some federal judges in the Northern District of California have opted to use the lodestar approach to awarding fees, versus the percentage of recovery method, in mega-class actions with

Lodestar/Private Attorney General:  1021.5 Fees Must Be Based On Lodestar Methodology, Not Percentage Of Recovery Test

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

    Re-Do Was The Result In This One.               In Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Company, Inc., Case No. B270168 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 3, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge in a class action case awarded $29,409 in attorney’s fees to class counsel under the private attorney general statute based on the

Lodestar/Private Attorney General: 1021.5 Fees Must Be Based On Lodestar Methodology, Not Percentage Of Recovery Test

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Re-Do Was The Result In This One.            Above:  Lockheed Model 18 Lodestar.  Source: www.airwaysmuseum.com             In Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Company, Inc., Case No. B270168 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 3, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge in a class action case awarded $29,409 in attorney’s fees to class counsel under

Civil Rights/Lodestar: Trial Court Award Of Fees Under Section 1983 Reversed And Remanded For Impermissible Double Deduction From Lodestar And Failure To Consider Limited Success In Calculating Fees On Fees

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar

  Also, Costs Improperly Excluded From Fee Calculus As Permitted Under § 1983.     The Third District in Clapp v. Terry, Case No. C076562 (3d Dist. Nov. 23, 2016) (unpublished) is an important primer on the proper methodology to be used when awarding lodestar fees, fees on fees, and costs in civil right cases to

Scroll to Top