Cases: Multipliers

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees: Taduran Decision Recently Certified For Publication

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Opinion Affirmed A Negative Multiplier And Rejection Of A Positive Multiplier When Prevailing Employee Challenged The Fee Award As Too Small Under The Abuse Of Discretion Review Standard. In our May 29, 2026 post, we discussed Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., Case No. G06478 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 26, 2026 filed; […]

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers: Reduced $733,440 Fee Award In PAGA/Labor Violations Case, From Requested $1.047 Million Lodestar, Was Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Non-Complexity Of Issues, Lack Of Success From Stated Goals, And Upward Adjustment Of Past Hourly Rates To Future Periods Of The Litigation Justified The .07 (Negative) Multiplier And No Award Of A Positive Multiplier. Taduran v. James R. Glidewell, Dental Ceramics, Inc., Case No. G064718 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 26, 2026) (unpublished) is a

Multipliers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Ninth Circuit Reverses and Remands A Multiplier Award In A False Claims Case, Disagreeing On The Merits Of The Award, But Agreeing That The Reason For The Enhancement Was Not Specific Enough.

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Dissenting Circuit Judge M. Smith concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in determining this case to be “rare and exceptional” and thereby justifying such an enhancement.  In must reading for attorneys seeking positive enhancements for a federal case in the Ninth Circuit, Thrower v. Academy Mortgage Corp., Case No. 34-4103 (9th Cir.

Multipliers, Private Attorney General, Reasonableness of Fees: 2/3 DCA Reverses And Remands For Reconsideration An Attorney Fees Award Of $83,197.50 – Finding Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Awarded Excessive Fees Unsupported By The Record

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees:  Trial Judge Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Awarding Almost $4.9 Million In Attorney’s Fees To Successful FEHA Plaintiff

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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

Employment, Lodestar, Multipliers: Plaintiffs Prevailing On Wage Claims Were Properly Awarded $1,767,649.50 In Attorney’s Fees As Against Employer

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

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,

Employment, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff’s Win On Some FEHA Claims Justified A $1,385,546 Fees/Costs Award

Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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

Reasonableness Of Fees: Second Dist. Div. 8 Affirms $493K Fee Award And 1.8 Multiplier In FEHA Case

Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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

Block Billing, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Inflated Fee Request In A Non-complex FEHA Case Where Block Billing And Failure To Explain Proliferation In Fees For A Six Month Period Through Trial Justified A Drastic Reduct

Cases: Block Billing, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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

Scroll to Top