Cases: Multipliers

Allocation, Employment, Hourly Rates, Lodestar, Multipliers, Paralegal Time:  $1,677,071.25 Full Request Fee Award In Bay Area FEHA Case Affirmed On Appeal With A Minor Remand Revisit

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Hourly Rates, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Paralegal Time

Plaintiff Was Awarded $3.272 Million Damages (With $3.5 Million Punitive Damages Ordered For A New Trial); Remand Issue Was That Clerical And Paralegal Work Should Not Have Been Billed Out At A $925 Hourly Rate. Knight v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. A172015 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 2, 2026) (unpublished) has a nice discussion

Allocation, Multipliers, Private Attorney General: Close To $3 Million In Attorney’s Fees Award To Plaintiffs/Respondents Against CalPERS Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Significant Benefit Was Conferred, And No Need For Apportionment Where Successful And Unsuccessful Claims Were Inextricably Intertwined. In Liu v. Bd. of Adm. of CalPERS, Case No. B341221 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 29, 2026) (unpublished), lead plaintiff/respondent Liu on appeal, a class member of CalPERS, filed a CCP § 1094.5 writ mandate petition, on

Block Billing, Costs, Hourly Rates, Laffey Matrix, Multipliers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: This Next Case Is A Poster Child For How NOT To Support Or Defend Fee And Costs Motions

Cases: Block Billing, Cases: Costs, Cases: Hourly Rates, Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

In The End, The Defense May Have Gotten The Better Side Of It, But The Appellate Court Rejected That Nothing Was Owed To Plaintiff—The Reduced Fee Award Affirmed In No Uncertain Terms In A Remanded Voting Rights Case. We hardly know where to start on this one, but Robles v. City of Ontario, Case No.

Lodestar, Multipliers, Prevailing Party, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Where Prevailing Plaintiff Won Substantial Trial And Appellate Victories On The Scope Of Penal Code Section 496(c), Substantial Fee Award Was Affirmed On Appeal With A Minor Remand Issue

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Lodestar, Not Contingency Fee Agreement Amount, Governed Work On Section 496(c) Work, Requiring A Remand On That Sole Issue. Siry Investments, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour, Case No. B340681 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 23, 2026) (unpublished) involved a long-ranging dispute between the parties with respect to the scope of relief and attorney’s fees allowed under Penal Code

Employment, Multipliers: Plaintiff Prevailing Under California’s Whistleblower Statutes Correctly Was Awarded Over $2.92 Million In Fees And $210,000 In Costs

Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers

Defendant’s Challenge To Application Of A 1.5 Positive Multiplier Was Rebuffed On Appeal. The California Whistleblower Protection Act (CWPA), Gov. Code section 8547 et seq., has a mandatory prevailing party fee-shifting provision allowing reasonable attorney’s fees as provided by law to a party prevailing on a cause of action under CWPA.  (See section 8547.10(c).)  This

Costs, Multipliers, Reasonableness of Fees, Requests For Admission: $200,000 Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Elderly Patient In A Senior Facility, Over A 60% Reduction From The Requested Lodestar Fees, Was Affirmed On Appeal Based On Negative Multiplier Factors And The Abuse Of Discretion Review Standard

Cases: Costs, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission

Lower Court Also Did Not Err In Taxing Costs For Unreasonable, Unused Photocopies of Exhibits and Enlargements. In Aud v. RRT Enterprises, LP, Case No. B340727 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 26, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff sued for elder abuse under two statutes (including a Health & Safety Code provision) and negligence, with a jury finding

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.

Scroll to Top