Lower Court Did Reduce The Request By $348,208.50, And It Correctly Denied A Positive Multiplier Request By Plaintiff. In Maas v. McKinnon Broadcasting Co., Case No. D082767 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 13, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a $1,775,000 jury verdict after a four-week trial in a discrimination case, although she did not win on […]
The Trial Court, Which Is Not Allowed To Rubberstamp An Attorney Fees Request, Failed To Explain Its Reasoning For The Award That Included A $750 Hourly Rate And A 1.5 Positive Multiplier Despite The Lack Of Complexity and Risk Involved In The Case In Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC v. Ramirez, Case No. B342780 (2d
Defense Litigating Long And Hard, If Unsuccessful, Can Anticipate Large Fee Award Against It. Bronshteyn v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs, Case No. B329890, et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 17, 2025) (published) illustrates how a defendant litigating hard by bringing multiple unsuccessful motions, prosecuting an unsuccessful merits appeal, and rejecting a lower CCP section
Although Reducing The Requested Hourly Rates For Sonoma County, The Rest Of The Lodestar Request And 1.5 Positive Multiplier Request Were Affirmed. In Pelayo v. Utility Partners of America, LLC, Case No. A171211 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 7, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff employees settled with employer, after contentious litigation on the eve of trial,
Compensatory Award Was $709,555, With Counsel’s Skill And Multiplier Request Supporting The Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal. The trial judge in Ramirez v. Bala, Case No. H049689 (6th Dist. June 30, 2025) (unpublished) awarded a FEHA plaintiff $1,385,546 in attorney’s fees and costs (about the full request, inclusive of a 1.5 multiplier) after plaintiff
Attorney Fees Are Rather Discretionary, And The Trial Judge Is Usually In The Best Position To Exercise That Discretion. Pamela Pollock alleged her supervisor, Michael Kelso, sexually harassed her and discriminated against her based on race by denying her a promotion. The trial court initially ruled the lawsuit was time-barred, but the California Supreme
Fee Request Was About $1.75 Million In A Case Where $36,757.25 In Damages Was Awarded, With A Lower Court Awarding Only $135,102. Inflated fee requests are often reduced substantially and sometimes denied altogether. In the next case, block billing, failure to explain a huge jump in the fee request for a six-month period, use
Trial Judge Applied The Correct Lodestar And Multiplier Factors, Awarding Plaintiff’s Attorneys $1,054,494 In Fees Under FEHA. In Young v. Dept. of Public Social Services, Case No. B329748 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 6, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff won $3.5 million in damages on a retaliation claim, but plaintiff’s attorneys sought a $1.498 million lodestar
Significant Benefit Incurred, If Injunctive Relief Was Considered, And Other Objections Were Not Specific To Justify Any Reduction. In Doskocz v. ALLS Lien Services, Case No. A166299 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 20, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), class counsel prevailed on behalf of plaintiffs in case involving some novel and complex issues
Message Is That Incivility Can Lead To A Negative Multiplier To A Fees Request, On Top Of Other Reductions. On October 3, 2023, we posted on Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations, Case No. B321566 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 2, 2023 unpublished), but it was certified for publication on October 25, 2023. The main lesson
