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 This next unpublished decision is interesting on a couple of fronts.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
Case Discusses It in Class Action and MDL Complex Litigation Contexts, Also Indicating Perdue Decision Did Not Apply to Using Lodestar as Check on Percentage of Recovery Fee Award. For those practitioners dealing with cases where a common fund is created (from which fee awards are frequently sought), we came across a case
Second District, Division 8 Believed Financial Factor Could Be Considered Based on Settlement Agreement, But Did Not Beiieve Ongoing Operational “Cut” Rationale Was Justified. A redevelopment agency in Rogel v. Lynwood Redevelopment Agency, Case No. B219626 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 2, 2011) (certified for publication) was exposed to up to $2.7 million
Requested 2.0 Multiplier Scaled Back to 1.4. Just to show you how class action fee awards can often be larger than the damages awards in protracted, contentious cases, we now digest Alcoser v. Thomas, Case Nos. A124848 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 16, 2011) (unpublished). There, a tenant successfully won
Abuse of Discretion Standard Did Not Prevent Reversal When Record Showed Errors, According to Sixth District. In an interesting contrast to the way the abuse of discretion standard was deferentially applied in our contemporaneous post in Murrell v. Rolling Hills Community Association, the Sixth District found that the trial court abused its discretion in
Lodestar Should Capture the Usual Fee Recovery; Federal Judges Must Provide a Reasonably Specific Explanation for All Aspects of a Fee Determination. At least in the area of federal civil rights cases (although the opinion may have broader applicability), the U.S. Supreme Court has issued an important decision relating to fee enhancements in Perdue v.
Court of Appeal Also Decides Prejudgment Interest Not Allowable on Fee Awards. Okay, so who says we don’t try to give you readers a synopsis of decisions (even though some might be a little wordy)? The next decision—Woosley v. State of California, Case No. B209890 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 16, 2010) (unpublished)—involves some
Plaintiff Does Not Convince Appellate Court to Award More, With Fourth District, Division Commenting on Some “Cutting Edge” Substantive Questions. Although the next case could be viewed as just a simple abuse of discretion case, it actually discusses some interesting tensions between federal and state cases on the specificity of reasoning that must be
