Additional Costs Awards for Experts and Trial Technology Also Sustained. In Bender v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B236294 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 9, 2013) (published), plaintiff won an excessive police force Bane Act suit, with the Bane Act containing a fee-shifting clause. The lower court also awarded $989,258 to plaintiff […]
Multipliers Also Correctly Denied. After a decades long FEHA litigation involving multiple appeals and four litigation phases, partially winning plaintiff in Fotheringham v. Avery Dennison Corp., Case No. B238282 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 13, 2013) (unpublished) must have felt dismayed when the lower court awarded her only $165,781 in fees (out of
Reconstructed Time Sheet Evidence Went Only to Weight, Not Admissibility Of Fee Submissions. In Cates v. John Chiang, as State Controller, Case No. D060570 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 7, 2013) (published), plaintiff received $2,011,844 in fees under a private attorney general “catalyst theory” (lodestar at a blended hourly rate of $451 for
Appellate Court Dismisses Applying Perdue in California State Court Cases and Affirms that Interest Ran From Date of Remanded New Fee Determination. In our March 31, 2009 post, we extensively discussed Khazan v. Braynin (Khazan II), an unpublished appellate court decision where the First District, Division 4 remanded a fee award because it
Award Represented a 3.2 Multiplier. In McKenzie v. Federal Express Corporation, U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal. Case No. CV 10-02420 GAF (PLAx) (Doc. No. 139 July 2, 2012), U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess (appropriate last name for this post) awarded plaintiffs’ class counsel $2,062,500 in attorney’s fees in a California Labor Code wage/hour case,
Also Rejects Application of Perdue v. Kenny A. To State Cases Involving Lodestar Multipliers. Khazan v. Braynin, Case No. A128536 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 30, 2012) (certified for partial publication; fee interest issue published) is an interesting decision that has a scholarly discussion on when interest begins to run on a fee
Lower Court Properly Scaled Back Expert Fee Costs Award Against Plaintiff Based on Her Financial Situation. Hernandez v. The Regents of the University of California, Case Nos. A129427/A130063 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 12, 2011) (unpublished) involved some interesting fees and costs issues, especially given the shifting impact of Code of Civil Procedure
October 25, 2011 Oral Argument Heard on Walker and Humphries Cases. In our May 30, 2011 post, we discussed Walker v. Giuffre, a New Jersey appellate division decision which disallowed a 45% fee enhancement in a state consumer fraud case based on the perceived more rigorous analysis applied to multipliers by the U.S.
1.5 Multiplier Sustained by Appellate Court, Rejecting Application of Federal Perdue Analysis. Well, well. This next unpublished decision is interesting on a couple of fronts. First, it illustrates that courts will not hesitate to vindicate wage/hour violations through an award of fees enhanced by a multiplier. Second, it also demonstrates that state courts
Walker v. Giuffre Is the Case Under Review. In Walker v. Giuffre, 415 N.J. Super. 597 (App. Div. 2010), the Appellate Division reversed a 45% fee enhancement to plaintiffs’ attorneys under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act. The Appellate Division did so
