52 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,596 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
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,827 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
510 U.S. 569 (1994) Cited 629 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”
Moreno v. Sacramento
534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,260 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may impose a discretionary 10 percent "haircut"
Trevino v. Gates
99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,736 times
Holding that a child who filed an action seeking punitive damages as the result of the killing of her father was in privity with her grandmother who earlier sued concerning the same events, because the grandmother had a "tremendous incentive" to recover punitive damages
Gates v. Deukmejian
987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 1,684 times
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying exception to the forum rule where local counsel were unavailable
Welch v. Metropolitan Life
480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 946 times
Holding district court on remand could reduce requested rates based on "evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested" although the party opposing the request for fees had not previously introduced any evidence undermining requested rates
Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners
682 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2012) Cited 488 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that conversion, rather than incorporation, was appropriate to consider videos to assess fair-use defense and rejecting argument that incorporation-by-reference doctrine should be expended to "encourage courts to consider affirmative defenses on 12(b) motions and thereby reduce the threat of nuisance suits"
Gilbrook v. City of Westminster
177 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 681 times
Holding that speech regarding public safety implications of city's decision to reduce fire department budget involved matter of public concern
United Steelworkers v. Phelps Dodge Corp.
896 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1990) Cited 721 times
Holding that the district court must “presume ... reasonable” an uncontested market fee rate supported by sufficient evidence
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 35,819 times 143 Legal Analyses
Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,045 times 48 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge
Fed. R. Evid. 602 Cited 3,511 times 13 Legal Analyses
Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"
Section 505 - Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees
17 U.S.C. § 505 Cited 2,974 times 70 Legal Analyses
Granting the district court discretion to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in copyright cases
Section 6250 - Legislative intent
Cal. Gov. Code § 6250 Cited 654 times 12 Legal Analyses
In section 6250, the Legislature declared it was “ ‘mindful of the right of individuals to privacy,’ ” and the dual concern for privacy and disclosure appears in numerous provisions throughout the CPRA.

City of Inglewood v. Joseph Teixeira et al

52 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 under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988

Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”

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

Holding that a child who filed an action seeking punitive damages as the result of the killing of her father was in privity with her grandmother who earlier sued concerning the same events, because the grandmother had a "tremendous incentive" to recover punitive damages

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 on remand could reduce requested rates based on "evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested" although the party opposing the request for fees had not previously introduced any evidence undermining requested rates

Holding that speech regarding public safety implications of city's decision to reduce fire department budget involved matter of public concern

Holding that the district court must “presume ... reasonable” an uncontested market fee rate supported by sufficient evidence

Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

Granting the district court discretion to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in copyright cases

In section 6250, the Legislature declared it was “ ‘mindful of the right of individuals to privacy,’ ” and the dual concern for privacy and disclosure appears in numerous provisions throughout the CPRA.