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 G057244/G058020 (4th Dist., Div. 3), which was unpublished at the time.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,
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
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 of Transportation, Case No. B293859 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 14, 2020) (unpublished).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
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 We discussed the then unpublished case of Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. B293987 (2d Dist., Div. 1 April 1, 2020)
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
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
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
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
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
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
