36 Cited authorities

Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (1984) Cited 8,810 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”
Staton v. Boeing Co.
327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 1,924 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"
Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert
444 U.S. 472 (1980) Cited 1,029 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court properly assessed attorney's fees based on the total fund available to the prevailing class rather than the amount actually recovered
Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite
396 U.S. 375 (1970) Cited 1,401 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that causation of damages by materially misleading proxy misstatement could be established by showing that proxy solicitation was an "essential link in the accomplishment of the transaction"
Ketchum v. Moses
24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) Cited 1,734 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 1,253 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may impose a discretionary 10 percent "haircut"
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.
290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 1,072 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding state law governing underlying claims in a diversity action “also governs the award of fees”
Mangold v. California Public Utilities Com'n
67 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 1,165 times
Holding that a plaintiff must present their claim in writing before bringing suit
Resnick v. Frank
779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 451 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that awards cumulatively representing 0.17% of the settlement fund were reasonable
Sprague v. Ticonic Bank
307 U.S. 161 (1939) Cited 1,041 times
Holding that because a petition for fees is "an independent proceeding supplemental to the original," the suggestion "that it came after the end of the term at which the main decree was entered and [is] therefore too late" was unavailing
Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Cited 17,824 times 315 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Douglas Hernandez v. Pei Wei Asian Diner LLC et al

36 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 "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 the district court properly assessed attorney's fees based on the total fund available to the prevailing class rather than the amount actually recovered

Holding that causation of damages by materially misleading proxy misstatement could be established by showing that proxy solicitation was an "essential link in the accomplishment of the transaction"

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

Holding that a plaintiff must present their claim in writing before bringing suit

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

Holding that because a petition for fees is "an independent proceeding supplemental to the original," the suggestion "that it came after the end of the term at which the main decree was entered and [is] therefore too late" was unavailing

Prohibiting unlawful business practices