Cases: Multipliers

Allocation, Employment, Mulitpliers, Private Attorney General: 1/1 DCA Reverses $2,905,200 In PAGA Penalties Against Defendant, But Affirms $7,793,030 In Attorney Fees Inclusive Of A 2.0 Multiplier

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

The Fees Award Was Supported By PAGA, Section 1021.5, And The Catalyst Theory, And Apportionment Of Fees Among The Retaliation And PAGA Claims Was Neither Necessary Nor Possible, While Complexity Of Issues And Skill Of Attorneys Supported Multiplier In This Intensely Litigated Case.             In Sargeant v. Board of Trustees of The California State University, […]

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Multipliers, Preemption: Prevailing Lemon Law Plaintiff Winning Only $21,957.25 In Damages At Jury Trial Properly Awarded $169,602 In Attorney Fees, Inclusive Of .2 Multiplier, Against Dealership And Finance Company

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Preemption

Apportionment Was Not Necessary Due To Intertwined Claims, Multiplier Was Appropriate Given Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Contingency Risk, And – Contrary To Lafferty And Spikener – 2/5 DCA Determined That The Holder Rule Does Not Limit The Attorney Fees A Plaintiff May Recover From A Creditor-Assignee.             For a great discussion on the Holder Rule cap and

Lodestar, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees: Prevailing FEHA Plaintiff Only Recovering $400,800 In Fees Out Of Requested $1,064,062.70 Did Not Recover Any More On Appeal

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

Compensatory Award Was $575,000.             Plaintiff did prevail on some wrongful termination/FEHA claims to the tune of $575,000 in past noneconomic damages.  Plaintiff later moved to recoup $1,064,062.70 in fees (lodestar of $532,031.35 plus a 2.0 positive multiplier), with the trial judge awarding $400,800.  Both sides appealed, with plaintiff filing a cross-appeal seeking more fees. 

Employment, Multipliers, Costs: Employee Obtaining Partial Success In FEHA Case Properly Awarded $695,000 In Attorney’s Fees, No Expert Witness Fees, And Some Routine Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers

Plaintiff’s $2 Million Request, Inclusive Of A 2.0 Positive Multiplier, Did Not Gain Traction.             Partial success and high hourly rates can often lead to reductions and rejection of a multiplier in contingency-driven cases under FEHA.  That is what basically occurred in Do v. Raytheon Co., Case No. B293950 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct 27,

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Multipliers: Santana Decision Now Published

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

Apportionment Between Song-Beverly Act Fees/Costs And Other Causes Of Action, Where Fees Are Not Permitted, Not Necessary Where Claims Are Inextricably Intertwined.               In our September 29, 2020 post, we discussed Santana v. FCA US, LLC, Case Nos. G057244/G058020 (4th Dist., Div. 3), which was unpublished at the time.             In Santana,

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Multiplier: Although Fraudulent Concealment Compensatory And Punitive Damages Were Reversed, $510,637.87 Fee/Costs Award Under Song-Beverly Act Case Affirmed On Appeal

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

Failure To Apportion/Double Counting Lodestar And Enhancement Arguments Not Supported By The Record.             In many cases, a fees-seeking litigant needs to apportion between fee entitlement and non-fee entitlement claims, unless the thrust of the case involved a fee entitlement case so that it was inextricably intertwined with a non-fee case.  If so, even a

Civil Rights, Multipliers: Lower Court Properly Denied Prevailing FEHA Plaintiff’s Request For A 2.0 Positive Multiplier

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers

Grant Of Full Lodestar Request Was The Main Reason For Refusing Multiplier, A Determination Affirmed On Appeal.             A plaintiff prevailed on FEHA claims against defendant in Scudder v. Dept. of Transportation, Case No. B293859 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 14, 2020) (unpublished).  Plaintiff then moved for attorney’s fees in a lodestar amount of $592,075

Consumer Statutes, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees: Mikhaeilpoor Opinion Now Published

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

Prevailing Plaintiff’s Request For Fees In A Straightforward Lemon Law Case Was Properly And Significantly Reduced For Overstaffing, Lack Of Efficiency, Excessive Hourly Rates, And Denial Of Lodestar Multiplier.             We discussed the then unpublished case of Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. B293987 (2d Dist., Div. 1 April 1, 2020)

Consumer Statutes, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Judge In “Uncomplicated” Lemon Law Case Properly Awarded $94,864 In Song-Beverly Act Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff Winning A Jury Verdict Of $35,805.08

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

Plaintiff Had Sought $344,639 In Fees, Which Lower Court Found To Be Unreasonable Based On Overstaffing, Lack Of Efficiency, And Requesting Hourly Rates Too High For The Complexity Of The Case; Multiplier Request Properly Denied.             We commend everyone to read the appellate court’s affirmance of a trial court’s reduction of an attorney’s fees request

Employment, Multipliers, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: FEHA Plaintiff Properly Awarded Fees At Reduced Hourly Rates, But Augmented By Hourly Rates For Enhancement Factors, And Then Correctly Denied Any Multiplier Beyond That

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

Almost $1.5 Million In Fees/Costs Sought, But Ultimate Affirmed Award Was About $649,000.             The next case is an interesting example of how a trial judge’s decision to not credit prior fee awards to an employment contingency attorney was affirmed because there was not sufficient foundation to show the prior awards were similar to the

Scroll to Top