Court Rejects Needless Markup: 1.1 Multiplier Used, But Rejected $1,623,087 Lodestar/2.0 Multiplier Fees Request.
In civil rights cases, winning plaintiffs have liberally-oriented fee shifting statutes in play which can result in exponential fee awards as compared to fairly modest damages recoveries–that is how the statutory schemes at both federal and state levels operate. The next case, Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Case Nos. A132558/A134723 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 27, 2013) (unpublished), is a good illustration of how this pans out for a civil rights plaintiff.
There, a civil rights plaintiff won $128,230 in economic and noneconomic damages based on failure to provide reasonable accommodations/failure to engage in the interactive process/wrongful discharge, but lost theories of retaliation and age/national origin discrimination. Plaintiff then requested $3,287,000 in fees, comprised of a $1,623,087 lodestar enhanced by a 2.0 multiplier. The lower court awarded instead $1,283,629.18 in fees, consisting of a $1,166,935.62 lodestar and 1.1 multiplier.
On appeal, losing defendant argued that work on unsuccessful claims should not have been allowed and a multiplier was unjustified.
The appellate court affirmed the fee award. The lower court could properly infer that the work on unsuccessful claims was interrelated to the successful claims; and, besides, plaintiff’s attorneys did proffer evidence that very little time was spent on the unsuccessful claims apart from interrelated work. As far as the multiplier was concerned, the modest multiplier combined with other reductions in the base lodestar showed the lower court acted well within its discretion. So, the civil rights plaintiff won a ten-fold fee award as compared to base compensatory damages, and will now be able to seek reasonable attorney’s fees for winning the appeal.