25 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,574 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
Fox v. Vice
563 U.S. 826 (2011) Cited 1,785 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts "may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney's time[, a]nd appellate courts must give substantial deference to these determinations"
Livadas v. Bradshaw
512 U.S. 107 (1994) Cited 1,589 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding there was no section 301 preemption because a wage rate provision of the CBA only had to be referenced to compute the proper damages
Jones v. GN Netcom, Inc.
654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 1,456 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts should "award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained," even where counting all hours reasonably spent would produce a larger fees award
Staton v. Boeing Co.
327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 1,927 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that "named plaintiffs ... are eligible for reasonable incentive payments" in addition to reimbursement "for their substantiated litigation expenses, and identifiable services rendered to the class directly under the supervision of class counsel"
Moreno v. Sacramento
534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,257 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may impose a discretionary 10 percent "haircut"
Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp.
563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 1,062 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that settlement was substantively fair and reasonable to the class
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.
290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 1,075 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding state law governing underlying claims in a diversity action “also governs the award of fees”
Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n
427 U.S. 132 (1976) Cited 463 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law is preempted where it would upset the congressionally defined balance of power between management and labor by regulating activity Congress deliberately left unregulated
Resnick v. Frank
779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 452 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that awards cumulatively representing 0.17% of the settlement fund were reasonable
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 41,202 times 141 Legal Analyses
Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,939 times 1235 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
Section 1194.2 - Liquidated damages in action to recover wages
Cal. Lab. Code § 1194.2 Cited 326 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing exception to a liquidated damages award where the court, in its discretion, finds that the "employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of any provision of the Labor Code relating to minimum wage"

Ramonoa J. Hogue v. YRC, Inc., et al

25 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 district courts "may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney's time[, a]nd appellate courts must give substantial deference to these determinations"

Holding there was no section 301 preemption because a wage rate provision of the CBA only had to be referenced to compute the proper damages

Holding that district courts should "award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained," even where counting all hours reasonably spent would produce a larger fees award

Holding that "named plaintiffs ... are eligible for reasonable incentive payments" in addition to reimbursement "for their substantiated litigation expenses, and identifiable services rendered to the class directly under the supervision of class counsel"

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

Holding that settlement was substantively fair and reasonable to the class

Holding state law governing underlying claims in a diversity action “also governs the award of fees”

Holding that state law is preempted where it would upset the congressionally defined balance of power between management and labor by regulating activity Congress deliberately left unregulated

Holding that awards cumulatively representing 0.17% of the settlement fund were reasonable

Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Providing exception to a liquidated damages award where the court, in its discretion, finds that the "employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of any provision of the Labor Code relating to minimum wage"