53 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 22,183 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
Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (1984) Cited 9,094 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”
Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
560 U.S. 242 (2010) Cited 1,363 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding a party need not "prevail[]" to obtain a fee award under § 1132(g); instead, a court has discretion to grant such an award as long as the party "has achieved some degree of success on the merits"
Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
473 U.S. 134 (1985) Cited 2,140 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that a participant's action filed pursuant to ERISA § 502 must seek remedies that provide a "benefit [to] the plan as a whole"
Camacho v. Bridgeport
523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,560 times
Holding that fees-on-fees must be calculated using the lodestar method
Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.
442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 1,630 times
Holding that the district court's "approval of the settlement constituted a final judgment on the merits"
Ketchum v. Moses
24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) Cited 1,778 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof
Moreno v. Sacramento
534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,322 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may impose a discretionary 10 percent "haircut"
Gates v. Deukmejian
987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 1,747 times
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying exception to the forum rule where local counsel were unavailable
Gonzalez v. City of Maywood
729 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 790 times
Holding district court erred by setting arbitrary hourly rates for plaintiff's attorneys by "disregarding the varied levels of skill, experience, and reputation among them."
Section 1132 - Civil enforcement
29 U.S.C. § 1132 Cited 26,751 times 175 Legal Analyses
Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner
Section 1961 - Interest
28 U.S.C. § 1961 Cited 12,131 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 6621 applies to internal revenue tax cases

Declaration

53 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

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 a party need not "prevail[]" to obtain a fee award under § 1132(g); instead, a court has discretion to grant such an award as long as the party "has achieved some degree of success on the merits"

Holding that a participant's action filed pursuant to ERISA § 502 must seek remedies that provide a "benefit [to] the plan as a whole"

Holding that fees-on-fees must be calculated using the lodestar method

Holding that the district court's "approval of the settlement constituted a final judgment on the merits"

Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof

Holding that a court may impose a discretionary 10 percent "haircut"

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying exception to the forum rule where local counsel were unavailable

Holding district court erred by setting arbitrary hourly rates for plaintiff's attorneys by "disregarding the varied levels of skill, experience, and reputation among them."

Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner

Holding that § 6621 applies to internal revenue tax cases