10 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,918 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute
Olson v. Cory
35 Cal.3d 390 (Cal. 1983) Cited 642 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Olson, we concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest on wrongfully withheld judicial salary and pension increases.
Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.
144 Cal.App.4th 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 274 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 285 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
Harman v. City and County of San Francisco
158 Cal.App.4th 407 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 149 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on remand, trial court did not abuse its discretion in evaluating attorney fees awarded in civil rights fee-shifting case for limited success under Hensley v. Eckerhart
Wisper Corp. v. California Commerce Bank
49 Cal.App.4th 948 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 128 times
Holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of prejudgment interest under California statute, because the jury's finding of comparative fault meant that "[t]he amount of damage could not be determined until after trial"
Earley v. Superior Court
79 Cal.App.4th 1420 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 92 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding unilateral fee shifting provision in Labor Code trumps broader bilateral provision
Bowman v. City of Berkeley
131 Cal.App.4th 173 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 49 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming trial court's exercise of discretion in reducing award
Boehm Associates v. Workers' Comp. App. Bd.
76 Cal.App.4th 513 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 56 times
C031700 Filed November 29, 1999 Certified for Publication ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Review, No. STK92070 Boehm Associates, Robert Feinglass and Nancy Roberts for Petitioners. David Bryan Leonard for California Society of Industrial Medicine Surgery, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners. Richard A. Krimen, Robert W. Daneri and Don E. Clark for Respondents. NICHOLSON, J. Pursuant to Labor Code section 4603.2, subdivision (b), interest accrues on unpaid bills for compensable
Stein v. Southern Cal. Edison Co.
7 Cal.App.4th 565 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 37 times
In Stein, the court determined that a stipulation to allow the court to award prejudgment interest, without citing a specific statutory provision, did not allow the trial court to determine prejudgment interest under section 3288 without submitting the matter to the jury.

Response Reply

10 Cited authorities

Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute

In Olson, we concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest on wrongfully withheld judicial salary and pension increases.

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

Holding that, on remand, trial court did not abuse its discretion in evaluating attorney fees awarded in civil rights fee-shifting case for limited success under Hensley v. Eckerhart

Holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of prejudgment interest under California statute, because the jury's finding of comparative fault meant that "[t]he amount of damage could not be determined until after trial"

Holding unilateral fee shifting provision in Labor Code trumps broader bilateral provision

Affirming trial court's exercise of discretion in reducing award

In Stein, the court determined that a stipulation to allow the court to award prejudgment interest, without citing a specific statutory provision, did not allow the trial court to determine prejudgment interest under section 3288 without submitting the matter to the jury.