Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

FEHA: $1,059,350.60 Fee Award, Based on 1.5 Multiplier, Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Use of Multiplier Appropriate Even Where Substantial Punitive Damages Also Were Awarded.      Bimbo Bakeries, known for selling such brands of Orowheat and Entemann’s, suffered an adverse jury verdict based on plaintiff’s complaint for wrongful termination, gender and pregnancy discrimination, and violation of related California statutes. The jury awarded plaintiff $340,700 in compensatory damages and […]

Unruh Act: Court Of Appeal Affirms $12,436 Attorney’s Fees Award Based On Limited Success Of Plaintiff

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  In a Split Opinion, Second District, Division 6 Rejects Plaintiff’s Requested $24,871.75 In Light of His Recovery of $4,000 Minimum Statutory Damages.      In cases involving mandatory fee-shifting statutes (such as the Unruh Act, Civil Code section 52(a)), we have seen an emerging theme that encompasses a large number of attorney’s fees recoveries: the

Class Action POOF!: Plaintiffs Lose $253,800 Summary Judgment Award And $107,000 Postjudgment Attorney’s Fees Award Then Evaporates

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Summary Judgment Grant Under Marijuana Reform Statute Involving Job Applicants.      The next case is an interesting one, although it again illustrates the POOF! principle—if a merits judgment is reversed, the fees award vanishes with it.      Larson v. Casual Male Stores, LLC, Case Nos. D051554 & D052185 (4th Dist.,

FEHA: Court of Appeal Affirms Award Of Lower Fee Award To Winning Plaintiff

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division 4 Sustains Fee Award of $676,001 Based on a 1.25 Multiplier, Rather than Plaintiff’s Requested $940,590.87 Lodestar Plus a Proposed 2.0 Multiplier.      The First District, Division 4, in the unpublished decision of Tarver v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. A116731 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 23, 2009) (unpublished),

Labor Code Violations: Trial Court Award Of $236,760 To A Single Prevailing Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division Two Sustains Lower Court’s Application of 1.5 Multiplier.      Labor Code section 218.5 authorizes a mandatory award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in any action for nonpayment of wages if any party requests fees and costs upon initiation of the action. Labor Code section 1194(a) mandates an award of reasonable

POOF!: Summary Judgment Reversal In City’s Favor Causes Tumble Of $245,130 Fee Recovery By Plaintiff

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fourth District, Division 1 Gives Domino Effect to Reversal.      POOF! again strikes.      City of San Diego obtained a partial reversal of a summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff who had also been awarded postjudgment fees of $245,130 under Government Code section 996.4, which pertains to a public employee’s right to reimbursement of

Scroll to Top