Cases: Multipliers

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 D053864/D054433 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 9, 2010) (unpublished), mobilehome purchasers did well in a Song-Beverly Act Warranty Act suit with a mandatory fee-shifting statute in favor of prevailing plaintiffs.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 A117148 & A118566 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2010) (unpublished), pitted two different statutes against each other, both contained in the Rees-Levering Automobile and Sales Finance Act (ASFA), Civil Code section 2981 et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

Private Attorney General Fee Award: $423,975 Award In First Impression Case Of Difficulty Affirmed

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

  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

Civil Rights: Court Of Appeal Affirms Lower Court’s Award of $6,659.15 To Plaintiff Who Had Limited Success And Recovered Only $5,000 In Disability Case

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Multipliers

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

Private Attorney General Statute: Trial Court Properly Awarded Plaintiffs $336,350 In Fees Rather Than Requested $1.49 Million (And Correctly Denied 2.0 Multiplier)

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

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

Scroll to Top