Cases: Multipliers

Civil Rights Multipliers: U.S. Supreme Court Narrows Use Of Enhancements In Federal Civil Rights Case

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Lodestar Should Capture the Usual Fee Recovery; Federal Judges Must Provide a Reasonably Specific Explanation for All Aspects of a Fee Determination. At least in the area of federal civil rights cases (although the opinion may have broader applicability), the U.S. Supreme Court has issued an important decision relating to fee enhancements in Perdue v.

Class Actions: Lodestar/Multiplier Determinations Remanded In Private Attorney General Statute Fee Award

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Court of Appeal Also Decides Prejudgment Interest Not Allowable on Fee Awards.      Okay, so who says we don’t try to give you readers a synopsis of decisions (even though some might be a little wordy)? The next decision—Woosley v. State of California, Case No. B209890 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 16, 2010) (unpublished)—involves some

FEHA: $445,000 Fee Recovery Out Of Requested $1.5 Million Fee Request Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Standard of Review

Plaintiff Does Not Convince Appellate Court to Award More, With Fourth District, Division Commenting on Some “Cutting Edge” Substantive Questions.      Although the next case could be viewed as just a simple abuse of discretion case, it actually discusses some interesting tensions between federal and state cases on the specificity of reasoning that must be

Lemon Law: $170,000 Attorney Fee Recovery Sustained In Song-Beverly Act Case Involving Mobilehome

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Fourth District, Division 1 Sustains Lower Court Determination Based on Its Experience With Hourly Rates.      In Cauchon v. Forest River, Inc., Case Nos. D053864/D054433 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 9, 2010) (unpublished), mobilehome purchasers did well in a Song-Beverly Act Warranty Act suit with a mandatory fee-shifting statute in favor of prevailing plaintiffs. Purchasers

Lodestar/Multiplier: 5 Employees Winning $40,000 Settlement For Labor Code Violations Are Awarded $164,421.16 In Statutory Fees and Costs

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

  Trial Court’s Lodestar Calculation and Failure to Apportion Were Correct.      For those of you practicing employment law, you know by now that many of the Labor Code sections involving wage/hour and meal break violations carry mandatory fee-shifting statutes generally favoring the prevailing plaintiff. Usually, the battle is how much, what if, once liability

Ralph Act: $456,705 Fee Award To Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

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

Rees-Levering Automobile And Sales Finance Act: First District Affirms Fee Recovery Lodestar Of $83,346 For Lead Attorney, But Rejects 1.5 Multiplier

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

  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

FEHA Award: Court Of Appeal Affirms $84,000 Fee Award Out Of Requested $686,290.50

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

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

Scroll to Top