§Why CasetextPricing

36 Cited authorities

  1. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

    150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 3,110 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominate[d]" over "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws" where a nationwide class of minivan buyers’ claims turned on "questions of [the manufacturer’s] prior knowledge of the [vehicle’s] deficiency, the design defect, and a damages remedy"

  2. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.

    290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding state law governing underlying claims in a diversity action “also governs the award of fees”

  3. Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy)

    46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 602 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that proof of a Labor Code violation is a prerequisite to recovery of PAGA penalties

  4. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n

    688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 1,157 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a settlement must stand or fall in its entirety because a district court cannot "delete, modify or substitute certain provisions"

  5. Syncor v. Cardinal

    516 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 330 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, where parties “reached an enforceable settlement agreement subject to court approval,” defendant could not withdraw from agreement even before court approval

  6. Linney v. Cellular Alaska Partnership

    151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 418 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a settlement was fundamentally fair when it created a $6 million settlement fund for the plaintiff class without releasing their claims and provided extensive injunctive relief

  7. Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    901 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1995)   Cited 306 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a multiplier of 3.6 was "well within the acceptable range for fee awards in complicated class action litigation" and that "[m]ultipliers in the 3–4 range are common"

  8. In re Pacific Enterprises Securities Litigation

    47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 285 times
    Holding fees justified "because of the complexity of the issues and the risks"

  9. Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.

    91 Cal.App.4th 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 228 times
    Finding that application of California law to a class settlement was appropriate when "substantial numbers of class members are located in California"

  10. Hesse v. Sprint Corp.

    598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 174 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding earlier settlement release was not enforceable to bar later claims "brought to remedy a different set of injuries"

  11. Section 1542 - Claims not known by creditor at time of executing release

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1542   Cited 1,666 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a general release does not extend to unknown claims

  12. Section 2698 - Title of part

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2698   Cited 1,628 times   36 Legal Analyses

    This part shall be known and may be cited as the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Ca. Lab. Code § 2698 Added by Stats 2003 ch 906 (SB 796), s 2, eff. 1/1/2004.

  13. Section 2699 - Civil penalty; civil action by aggrieved employee to recover

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2699   Cited 1,357 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Providing that "[a]ny employee who prevails in any action" shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees

  14. Rule 3.769 - Settlement of class actions

    Cal. R. 3.769   Cited 69 times

    (a) Court approval after hearing A settlement or compromise of an entire class action, or of a cause of action in a class action, or as to a party, requires the approval of the court after hearing. (b) Attorney's fees Any agreement, express or implied, that has been entered into with respect to the payment of attorney's fees or the submission of an application for the approval of attorney's fees must be set forth in full in any application for approval of the dismissal or settlement of an action