Cases: Lodestar

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               In Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Company, Inc., Case No. B270168 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 3, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge in a class action case awarded $29,409 in attorney’s fees to class counsel under the private attorney general statute based on the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

Lodestar/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Ninth Circuit Remands FOIA Fee Award For A “Re-Do” Given That District Court Relied On Stale Cases On Prevailing Hourly Rate For Winning Plaintiffs

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Majority Found Appeal Notice Encompassed Fee Award, But Dissent Did Not Agree And Found Plaintiffs Did Not Provide Hourly Rate Evidence In The Right Time Period And For FOIA Cases.      Hiken v. Department of Defense, No. 13-17073 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2016) (published) is a situation where magistrates, district judges, and the Ninth

Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Judge’s 70% Across-The-Board Reduction In All Hours Rather Than Just Flawed Hours Was Arbitrary And “Swept Too Broadly”

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Fee Award of $59,334.60 Out Of Requested $308,425 Was Too Drastic Based On Using Improper Fee Reduction Methodology.     Haircut.  Marion Post Wolcott, photographer.  Sept. 1938.  Library of Congress.      In the last few months, we posted on some fees cases—most notably Kerkeles (see our December 20, 2015 post)—where appellate courts have reversed decisions

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

Scroll to Top