Cases: Lodestar

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      In our March 19, 2015 post, we discussed the unpublished decision of Save Our Uniquely Rural v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. E059521 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 18, 2015).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

Civil Rights/Lodestar/Multiplier: $433,000 FEHA Recovery To Prevailing Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

  Reduction In Requested Hourly Rate and Denial of Multiplier Were No Abuses of Discretion.      In Shank v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., Case No. G049844 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 14, 2015) (unpublished), Plaintiff won a sexual harassment jury verdict against an employer and employer’s trainer, to the tune of $391,000 in compensatory damages

In The News . . . . E.D. Pa. Judge Awards Wage/Hour Attorneys 20% Of Settlement Fund, While D. Mass. Judge Awards Neurotin Class Action Counsel 28% Percentage Of Recovery In Class Action Case

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar

  Fee Award in TD Bank Wage/Hour Class Action.      In Keller v. TD Bank, N.A., Civ. Action No. 12-5045 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 4, 2014 Order), U.S. District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo awarded class action counsel exactly what they wanted–$1.2 million in fees out of a $6 million settlement fund in the settlement of a wage/hour

Scroll to Top