26 Cited authorities

Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (1984) Cited 9,115 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”
Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co.
33 Cal.4th 780 (Cal. 2004) Cited 886 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, "because the trial court's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, it abused its discretion"
Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University
132 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 520 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that failure to consider that payment for the case was deferred for four years in discussion of whether a multiplier was warranted was an abuse of discretion
Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn.
163 Cal.App.4th 550 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 289 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that objecting party bears the burden of specifying items challenged with sufficient evidence and argument and "[g]eneral arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice"
Children's Hospital Medical Ctr. v. Belshe
97 Cal.App.4th 740 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 343 times
Holding that the Department failed to demonstrate that “differential treatment of respondent hospitals on the basis of their location out of state is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.”
Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.
144 Cal.App.4th 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 277 times
Determining an award of attorney fees is a highly fact-specific task best left to discretion of the trial judge, familiar with the matter and with the expertise to determine the value of the legal services performed in the case
Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co.
79 Cal.App.4th 1127 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 286 times
Noting that a court is not required to allocate attorney's fees between successful and unsuccessful efforts for work on issues or claims that are so intertwined that it is impossible to separate them
McGrath v. County of Nevada
67 F.3d 248 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 300 times
Vacating and remanding an attorney's fee award because the district court insufficiently explained how it arrived at the award
Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy
215 Cal.App.4th 972 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 141 times
Noting that the plaintiff requested and received statutory damages under the RFDCPA even though she neither alleged nor received actual damages
Gates v. Rowland
39 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir. 1994) Cited 216 times
Holding fee applicant "must submit evidence in support of . . . hours worked"

Reply In Support of Motion For Attorneys Fees

26 Cited authorities

Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”

Holding that, "because the trial court's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, it abused its discretion"

Holding that failure to consider that payment for the case was deferred for four years in discussion of whether a multiplier was warranted was an abuse of discretion

Holding that objecting party bears the burden of specifying items challenged with sufficient evidence and argument and "[g]eneral arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice"

Holding that the Department failed to demonstrate that “differential treatment of respondent hospitals on the basis of their location out of state is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.”

Determining an award of attorney fees is a highly fact-specific task best left to discretion of the trial judge, familiar with the matter and with the expertise to determine the value of the legal services performed in the case

Noting that a court is not required to allocate attorney's fees between successful and unsuccessful efforts for work on issues or claims that are so intertwined that it is impossible to separate them

Vacating and remanding an attorney's fee award because the district court insufficiently explained how it arrived at the award

Noting that the plaintiff requested and received statutory damages under the RFDCPA even though she neither alleged nor received actual damages

Holding fee applicant "must submit evidence in support of . . . hours worked"