Dissenting Judge Concerned About Claim Response Rates and Clear Sailing/Reverter Clauses. Laguna v. Singh, Case No. 12-55479 (9th Cir. June 3, 2014) (published) was a case which shows the divergent views of federal jurists on class action settlements where the common fund value is not of a fully liquidated nature. The majority […]
Reviewed in Our May 6, 2014 Post. In our May 6, 2014 post, we reviewed Syers Properties v. Rankin, Case No. A137610 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 5, 2014 issued unpublished), which held among other things that: (1) detailed categorical breakout of time spent can substantiate a fee petition in California state courts;
$603,150 Out of Requested $1,512,794.50 Was the Award, With Defense Counsel Getting Paid $1,070,000 by Safeway. Although unpublished, the Second District, Division 4 has done an outstanding job of analyzing a reasonableness of fee award where both sides (prevailing employee and defending former employers) appealed, with employee arguing the fee award was too
Remanded To Decide If Multiplier Appropriate Upon Reversal of State Claim Giving Rise To Positive Enhancement. The Ninth Circuit in Chaudhry v. Interfaith Communities United For Justice and Peace, Case No. 11-55820 (9th Cir. May 19, 2014) (published) is an interesting decision involving federal civil rights/attendant state law (CA Civil Code section 52.1)
Successful Defendants Substantiated Hours and Hourly Rate Very Well In This One. Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin, Case No. A137610 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 5, 2014) (unpublished) is a case where a $843,245.27 defense fee award under Civil Code section 1717 was challenged on narrow grounds—with plaintiff disputing the reasonableness of
Looks Like Decades Trust Disputes Are Drawing To An End. Holt v. Denholm, Case Nos. G045496 and G046293 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 28, 2014) (unpublished)—both authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary–are two appeals involving cross-over probate and Civil Code section 1717 issues in a long-running battle between different sides of a family trust—pitting a
Third Circuit Sustains Using Percentage of Recovery Method, “Cross Checked” By Lodestar Analysis, In Setting Class Action Counsel Fees. In Dewey v. Volkswagen of America Inc., Case Nos. 13-1123/1124 (3d Cir. Feb. 12, 2014) (not published/not precedential), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sustained a $9,207,248 attorney’s fees award to class action counsel
Ford Motor Hit With $50,574.19 Lemon Law Jury Verdict, And Then Hit Again With $342,540.25 In Fees As Well As Costs/Expenses On Top. Many California consumer statutes, like the lemon laws, have mandatory fee-shifting statutes. Frequently, a winning plaintiff can obtain fee awards that are many times a multiplier of the underlying merits
Matter Remanded for Re-fixing of Fees Award. Plaintiff winning a California Family Rights Act, some FEHA, and two common law claims—obtaining a jury verdict of $287,400–moved to recover about $95,000 in routine costs and $1,675,627.50 in fees enhanced by a 2.0 positive multiplier for well over $3 million in requested fees. The trial
Much Less Awarded Than Requested $1.042-1.390 Million in Fees; Plaintiff Stipulated to Costs Reduction, With Modified Judgment Entered Accordingly. This case is an interesting illustration of how lower courts will reduce an inflated fee request to calculate a lodestar as well as enforce a “high/low” stipulation that was silent with regard to fees/costs.
