Cases: Lodestar

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

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.

Scroll to Top