10 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 22,246 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
Moreno v. Sacramento
534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,331 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may impose a discretionary 10 percent "haircut"
Copeland v. Marshall
641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Cited 1,035 times
Holding that "in Title VII and similar fee-setting cases," a court may grant an "adjustment to reflect the delay in receipt of payment" because such delay "deprives the eventual recipient of the value of the use of the money in the meantime"
Serrano v. Unruh
32 Cal.3d 621 (Cal. 1982) Cited 417 times
Holding that "unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust," "parties who qualify for a fee should recover for all hours reasonably spent, including those on fee-related matters."
Jones v. Dumrichob
63 Cal.App.4th 1258 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 152 times
Finding no abuse of discretion in awarding expert fees pursuant to a section 998 offer consisting of a cost waiver, but no monetary amount
Bach v. County of Butte
215 Cal.App.3d 294 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) Cited 81 times
Affirming trial court's refusal to hold evidentiary hearing on remand where prior opinion of Court of Appeal did not direct or authorize trial court to hold such hearing
Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.
93 Cal.App.3d 256 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) Cited 72 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 93 Cal. App. 3d 256 (1979), for example, the California Court of Appeal merely held that a stipulated judgment that was silent on costs could not be read to preclude recovery of costs by statute.
Thon v. Thompson
29 Cal.App.4th 1546 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 35 times
Disagreeing court erred by, inter alia, "awarding costs absent sufficient detail of the expenditures"; defendant supplied itemized costs and attorney declaration asserting necessity, and "absent an explicit statement by the trial court to the contrary, it is presumed the court properly exercised its legal duty"
Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. Sparks
8 Cal.App.4th 299 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 32 times
Docket No. A054728. July 2, 1992. Appeal from Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 921944, Richard P. Figone, Judge. COUNSEL Timothy J. Lee and Randall M. Shaw for Plaintiff and Appellant. Michelle Goldberg, Deputy City Attorney, and Violet Elizabeth Grayson for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION ANDERSON, P.J. This is an appeal from the trial court's order imposing sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 All further statutory references are to the Code
County of Kern v. Ginn
146 Cal.App.3d 1107 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) Cited 30 times
In Ginn, the reviewing court held that the party moving to tax had failed its burden to prove the claimed deposition costs were not reasonably necessary where "[the moving party] merely alleged that the depositions were neither necessary nor reasonable under the circumstances."

Opposition_plaintiffs_opposition_to_defendants_motion_to_tax_costs

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

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

Holding that "in Title VII and similar fee-setting cases," a court may grant an "adjustment to reflect the delay in receipt of payment" because such delay "deprives the eventual recipient of the value of the use of the money in the meantime"

Holding that "unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust," "parties who qualify for a fee should recover for all hours reasonably spent, including those on fee-related matters."

Finding no abuse of discretion in awarding expert fees pursuant to a section 998 offer consisting of a cost waiver, but no monetary amount

Affirming trial court's refusal to hold evidentiary hearing on remand where prior opinion of Court of Appeal did not direct or authorize trial court to hold such hearing

In Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 93 Cal. App. 3d 256 (1979), for example, the California Court of Appeal merely held that a stipulated judgment that was silent on costs could not be read to preclude recovery of costs by statute.

In Ginn, the reviewing court held that the party moving to tax had failed its burden to prove the claimed deposition costs were not reasonably necessary where "[the moving party] merely alleged that the depositions were neither necessary nor reasonable under the circumstances."