§Why CasetextPricing

Sawyer vs. Retail Data, LLC

Motion Other

24 Cited authorities

  1. Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin

    417 U.S. 156 (1974)   Cited 3,798 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions

  2. Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co.

    339 U.S. 306 (1950)   Cited 10,580 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"

  3. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

    472 U.S. 797 (1985)   Cited 1,830 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”

  4. Ketchum v. Moses

    24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,805 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof

  5. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler

    22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,251 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no error in awarding "prevailing market rate for comparable legal services in San Francisco, where counsel is located" in a case heard in Los Angeles

  6. Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University

    132 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 522 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

  7. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court

    34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 524 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that common questions predominated in overtime case brought by chain store managers

  8. Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

    34 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 422 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the trial court may consider results obtained in awarding a fee multiplier

  9. Serrano v. Priest

    20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977)   Cited 951 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that denying benefits of the private attorney general rule to funded public-interest attorneys would be essentially inconsistent with the rule itself

  10. Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc.

    1 Cal.5th 480 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 220 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that trial courts have discretion to conduct a lodestar cross-check on a percentage fee"

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

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2699   Cited 1,391 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Providing that "[a]ny employee who prevails in any action" shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees

  12. Section 226.2 - Employees compensated on a piece-rate basis

    Cal. Lab. Code § 226.2   Cited 82 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Setting the compensation rate at the "higher of" the applicable minimum wage or "[a]n average hourly rate"