Second District, Division 8 Affirms $84,500 Fee Award to Prevailing Plaintiff in CLRA Action. After two appeals, plaintiff finally has won finality with respect to a $84,500 fee award entered in his favor under the CLRA after winning a battle against a Porsche Turbo Coupe seller for a refund because the car needed various repairs. […]
Both Sides Appealed the Fee Award, But The Trial Court’s Award Stood Firm. The Ralph Act (Civil Code, § 51.7) provides that all persons within California’s jurisdiction have the right to be free from violence or intimidation because of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status or sexual orientation
Court of Appeal Also Rejects Asymmetrical Interpretation of Fee-Shifting Provision. The next case, Alarcon v. Fireside Bank, Case Nos. A117148 & A118566 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2010) (unpublished), pitted two different statutes against each other, both contained in the Rees-Levering Automobile and Sales Finance Act (ASFA), Civil Code section 2981 et
Plaintiff Only Won $55,000 Jury Verdict Plus $18,000 in Costs. Although awards to winning plaintiffs under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act are encouraged, they must be reasonable in amount. Otherwise, the trial court has broad discretion to deny them in entirety or substantially chop them down from their higher requests. The next
First District, Division 1 Rejects State’s Challenges to Amount of Fee Award. In an earlier appeal, certain plaintiffs successfully enjoined enforcement of certain legislation allowing for incarceration for drug-related probations violations because such a sanction was inconsistent with Proposition 36 (the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000). Plaintiffs also successfully defended
Second District, Division 6 Rejects Plaintiff’s Request for Award of $114,895 in Fees and $27,441.35 in Costs. Although the courts will award appropriate attorney’s fees to prevailing plaintiffs in civil rights disability cases, they will also discount for limited success and overinflated claims of complexity in litigation of the case. Molski v. Evergreen
First District, Division 5 Determines Trial Court Properly Applied Serrano III Factors. Even under fee-shifting, public interest statutes, our California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 255, 49 (1977) (Serrano III) mandated that multiple factors be used to increase or decrease a lodestar figure requested by victorious litigants. In the next case
Use of Multiplier Appropriate Even Where Substantial Punitive Damages Also Were Awarded. Bimbo Bakeries, known for selling such brands of Orowheat and Entemann’s, suffered an adverse jury verdict based on plaintiff’s complaint for wrongful termination, gender and pregnancy discrimination, and violation of related California statutes. The jury awarded plaintiff $340,700 in compensatory damages and
