Cases: Multipliers

In The News . . . . N.D. Cal. District Judge Lucy Koh Approves “No Poaching” Antitrust Class Action Settlement, Awarding $40,043,932.50 In Fees To Class Counsel

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, In The News

  Award Was Less Than Half Of $81 Million Request, Using Lodestar Billings Augmented By Positive 2.2 Multiplier.     On September 2, 2015, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California gave final approval to a class action settlement by high tech workers challenging on antitrust grounds a “no poaching” pact reached […]

Multiplier, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Settlement, Special Fee Shifting Statute, Substantiation: Three Unpublished “Power Ball” Decisions Synopsized

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Settlement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Dept. of Parks and Recreation v. Schoendorf, Case No. H039321 (6th Dist. May 26, 2015) (unpublished).    In this one, an appellate court denied $300,000 in attorney’s fees against the State under a settlement agreement where “reasonable diligence” governed the fee entitlement.  Given that the prevailing party determination was discretionary under this clause and

Lodestar, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees: Save Our Uniquely Rural Decision Certified For Publication

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

  Deals With Multiple Issues After Lower Court Awarded Only $19,176 Out Of Requested $231,000 In Fees.      In our March 19, 2015 post, we discussed the unpublished decision of Save Our Uniquely Rural v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. E059521 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 18, 2015). We now can update: the decision

Lodestar, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Did Not Err By Awarding $19,176 Out Of Requested $231,098 In Fees Under Private Attorney General Statute To Prevailing Plaintiff

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

  Limited Success, Excessive Hourly Rates, and Excessive Work Led To Reductions, Although Court Disagrees With One Aspect Of Gorman Decision.      In Save Our Uniquely Rural Community Environment v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. E059524 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 18, 2015) (unpublished), a CEQA plaintiff, a non-profit opposing the development of an

Lodestar, Multiplier, Private Attorney General, Reasonableness Of Fees, Substantiation Of Fees: Plaintiff’s Attorneys Garner $721,994.81 In Fee Recovery For Successfully Arguing City Of Los Angeles Could Not “Outsource” Initial Review Of

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

  However, Many of the Nonstatutory Costs Were Taxed.      Although we do not often post about trial court decisions involving fees and costs, Caleb Marker of Ridout Lyon + Ottoson, LLP in Long Beach sent us copies of the fees and costs rulings in Weiss v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC141354 (L.A.

Civil Rights/Lodestar/Multiplier: $433,000 FEHA Recovery To Prevailing Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

  Reduction In Requested Hourly Rate and Denial of Multiplier Were No Abuses of Discretion.      In Shank v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., Case No. G049844 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 14, 2015) (unpublished), Plaintiff won a sexual harassment jury verdict against an employer and employer’s trainer, to the tune of $391,000 in compensatory damages

Multiplier/SLAPP/Substantiation Of Fees: $162,000 Fee Award To Two Defendants Affirmed On Appeal

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

  1.25 Multiplier Allowed, Lack of Specific Challenges Did Not Lead to Major Reductions, and Prior SLAPP Awards Were Not Dispositive.      If you have followed our blog, you known there is a mandatory fee-shifting statute in favor of SLAPP defendant winners. In Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez, Case Nos. B243205/B246602 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct.

Allocation/Multiplier/Prevailing Party/Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: $180,648 Contractual Fee Recovery Affirmed In Case Where Plaintiffs Recovered Total Contract/Tort Underlying Award Of $109,000

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Prevailing Party

  $425,000 Fee Request Plus 1.5 Multiplier Nixed on Appeal.      In Holquin v. Dish Network LLC, Case No. D059983 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 22, 2014) (published), plaintiffs won a combined economic/noneconomic verdict against DISH Network and others in a satellite T.V. dispute. However, the rub was an attorney’s fees clause in the Residential

In The News . . . . N.D. Cal. District Judge Grants Reduced Lodestar Plus 2.59 Multiplier To Class Counsel In Bank of America Automated Call Settlement

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, In The News

  $8 Million Percentage of Recovery Request Nixed; Reductions Made for Inefficient Work Efforts and High Settlement/Mediation Work Requests.      In Rose v. Bank of America Corp., Case Nos. 5:11-CV-02390 & 5:12-CV-04009-EJD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2014) (Doc. No. 180), U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila gave final approval to a settlement of a class

Appeal Sanctions/SLAPP: $18,456.58 Fee/Costs Award Affirmed To Defense Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: SLAPP

  Appellate Court Found No Abuse of Discretion, Given Trial Court Reduced From Requested $39,104.58 Fees/Costs—However, 1.5 Multiplier Was Proper.      In Meaux v. Springfield, Case No. A139840 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 16, 2014) (unpublished), defense prevailing on a SLAPP motion requested $39,104.58 in fees/costs (inclusive of a 2.0 multiplier, but not for “fees

Scroll to Top