Cases: Multipliers

Class Action, Multipliers: Eleventh Circuit Court Of Appeals Affirms Most Of Class Counsel Award In Home Depot Data Breach Case, But Reverses 1.3 Positive Multiplier Enhancement

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Multipliers

Federal Appellate Court Provides Scholarly Analysis Of Differences Between Common Fund, Constructive Common Fund, And Contractual Fee-Shifting Cases.             In In re:  Home Depot Inc. Customer Data Security Litig., No. 17-14741 (11th Cir. July 25, 2019) (published), the Eleventh Circuit faced review of a $15.3 million fee award to class counsel in a class action […]

Allocation, Civil Rights, Multiplier: Cohabiting Unmarried Couple Tenants Winning $11,970 On FEHA Marital Discrimination Claim, Despite Losing Privacy Invasion And Quiet Enjoyment Claims, Properly Awarded $389,200 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers

Fees Properly Included A 1.3 Multiplier, With No Allocation Required Because Proof On FEHA And Other Claims Were Intertwined.             Plaintiff tenants, a cohabiting unmarried couple, sued a San Francisco defendant apartment owner for FEHA marital discrimination, invasion of privacy, and breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant based on owner’s actions in attempting to evict

Consumer Statutes, Multipliers: $327,782.75 Lemon Law Fee Award, Inclusive Of A 1.5 Positive Multiplier, Affirmed On Appeal Where $109,357.05 Was Compensatory Award

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Multipliers

Plaintiff’s Counsel Showed Why Defense Maneuvers And Jury Verdict Made The Case Beyond A Typical Lemon Law Case.             We have said this frequently in the past on prior blogs, but for clients and practitioners defending Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act “lemon law” cases, you need to be attuned to fee exposure, including positive multipliers, when

Lodestar, Multiplier, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Taxpayer Properly Awarded Fee Of $116,647.47 For Prevailing In Political Reform Act Action

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

60% Total Positive Multiplier And Lodestar Awards Were No Abuse Of Discretion.             California’s Political Reform Act, codified at Government Code sections 81000 et seq., prohibits a public employee from influencing a governmental decision in which he/she has a financial interest.  There are liability provisions which allow a prosecutor or taxpayer to challenge the particular

Civil Rights, Multiplier: FEHA Plaintiff’s Appeal Of A Reduced Fee Award Did Not Result In Any Change

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers

Hourly Rates Were Too High, Case Was Overprepared, And Limited Success Before The Jury Supported Lower Court’s Reduced Award.             FEHA plaintiff in Check v. Raley’s, Case No. A153906 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 31, 2019) (unpublished) won $119,211 on some claims, later requesting the trial court to award her $1,109,107 in fees. The lower

Employment, Lodestar, Multiplier: Employer Not Winning Total Defense Victory In De Novo Sup. Ct. Appeal Of Labor Comm. Award Properly Hit With Adverse Fee Award Of $86,160 Even Though Labor Comm. Award Only $4,250 (Rev. Down To $2,250 By Court Of Appeal)

Cases: Employment, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

Limited Success Argument Does Not Diminish Fee Recovery In This Particular Context.             In Nishiki v. Danko Meredith P.C., Case No. A147733 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 1, 2018) (published), an employer suffered an adverse Berman hearing award before the Labor Commissioner for waiting time penalties for failure to deliver a check for final wages

Civil Rights/Multiplier: Ninth Circuit Affirms $5,378,174.66 Civil Rights Fee Recovery, Inclusive Of 2.0 Positive Multiplier, For Five Prisoners Winning Compensatory And Punitive Damages Against County Of Los Angeles And Supervisory Jail Officials

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers

Prison Litigation Reform Act Did Not Cap Unruh Act Fee Recovery.             In Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, No. 13-56292 et al. (9th Cir. May 30, 2018) (published), the Ninth Circuit reviewed and affirmed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force verdicts of $740,000 in compensatory damages and $210,000 in punitive damages (the latter against

Civil Rights/Equity/Multiplier:  Although Total Judgment Offset Denied, Fee Award Based On 2.0 Positive Multiplier Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Equity, Cases: Multipliers

Multiplier Is Not Automatic, So Reversed To Consider Proper Factors On Appeal.             In Campos v. Kennedy, Case Nos. B266663/B268812 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 13, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff won a $225,000 compensatory verdict under civil rights fee shifting provisions for sexual battery.  Later, the trial court awarded plaintiff $ 2,924,830 in statutory fees, but

Civil Rights/Multiplier:  2.0 Multiplier Fee Award In FEHA Case Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers

Compensatory Award Was $1 Million, With $1,945,295 FEHA Award Affirmed On Appeal.             In Lopez v. City of Beverly Hills, Case No. B268451 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2017 unpublished; received for posting Dec. 1, 2017 unpublished), a FEHA plaintiff—after two years of litigation and a 10-day jury trial involving 24 witnesses–won to the

Civil Rights, Lodestar, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees:  Trial Judge Properly Cut Lodestar By 25%, And Applied A 1.5 Positive Multiplier, For Total Fee Award Of $752,925.92 In Case Garnering Compensatory Damages Of $625,000 To Plaintiff

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

Trial Judge Also Properly Awarded $15,000 Supplemental Fees For Posttrial Work.             For those of you not practicing in the employment/FEHA area, civil rights plaintiffs in disability/harassment/failure to accommodate cases are entitled to recovery of attorney’s fees under a pro-plaintiff statutory fee-shifting provision to be construed liberally to allow plaintiff full compensation for prevailing in

Scroll to Top