Cases: Multipliers

Multipliers: Dicta In Unpublished Case Implies That Fee Agreement With “Incurred” Language Did Not Prevent A Multiplier

Cases: Multipliers

Appellate Decision Suggested That San Dieguito Partnership Decision Was Undermined By PLCM Group.             Because appellant really failed to support challenges to a fee decision, dicta in Counts v. Chadwick, Case No. A163282 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 15, 2022) (unpublished) has more importance for practitioners in fee proceedings.  Specifically, appellant claimed that an award

Civil Rights, Multipliers, Reasonableness Of Fees: Ninth Circuit Confirms Significant Haircut To Serial ADA Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fees And Costs Award

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

No Abuse Of Discretion In District’s Reduction Of Fees And Costs Award To $9,851 From The Requested $34,899 Where Work Was Routine And Boilerplate, There Was A Lack Of Opposition, And Much Of The Motion Practice Was Unnecessary.             In Shayler v. 1310 PCH, LLC, Case No. 21-56130 (9th Cir. October 24, 2022) (published), serial

Employment, Multipliers, Reasonableness of Fees: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Award Of Attorney Fees To Prevailing Plaintiffs In DJOA Action

Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Amount Of Fee Award Was Justified Given Trial Court’s Analysis Of The Complexity Of The Case, Results Achieved By Plaintiffs, And Plaintiffs’ Showing To Support The Fee Request.             The Displaced Janitors Opportunity Act (Lab. Code, §§ 1060–1065) “requires contractors who are awarded contracts for janitorial or building maintenance services at a particular site to

Consumer Statutes, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Awarding $20,000 Fee Award Out Of Requested $40,113.75 Base Lodestar

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

The Problem Was That The Case Was Routine Such That Hours Billed For “Cut And Paste” Activities Were Excessive, With A 25% Positive Multiplier Properly Denied.             In Fishback v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. B298677 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 14, 2021) (unpublished), a lemon law plaintiff was awarded a lesser sum of attorney’s

Allocation, Multipliers, Section 1717, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Reversal And Remand Were In Order Where Trial Court Believed It Did Not Have Authority To Apply A Negative Multiplier In An Award Of Attorney Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Invoices Submitted In Support Of Plaintiff’s § 1717 Fees Motion Were Extensively Redacted And Contained Vague Block-Billing, Which Offered The Trial Court No Way To Meaningfully Apportion Time Between Causes Of Action.             After defeating defendant’s cross-claim breach of contract cause of action, plaintiff moved for Civ. Code § 1717 attorney fees of $939,600.50, which

Multipliers, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: The 1/5 DCA Affirms $2,961,264.29 Fees And Costs Award, Inclusive Of A 1.4 Multiplier, To Prevailing Plaintiff In Action For Violations Of A Conservation Easement

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff’s Attorneys, Who Bore The Risk Of Taking On A Partially Contingent Case With Important Public Interests At Stake, Displayed Exceptional Expertise and Skill In A Case Involving Nearly Five Years Of Contentious Litigation And A 19-Day Trial.             Following a 19-day bench trial in The Sonoma Land Trust v. Thompson, Case No. A159139 (1st

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,

Scroll to Top