Holding that for purposes of claiming a fee award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, "counsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended."
Holding that denying benefits of the private attorney general rule to funded public-interest attorneys would be essentially inconsistent with the rule itself
Holding that the court's ruling that ZIP code information constitutes personal information within the meaning of section 1747.08 applies retrospectively
Holding that plaintiff adequately stated UCL claim by alleging that defendant engaged in intentional interference with plaintiff's employment contracts
Finding block-billing impermissible only where it made it impossible to distinguish between tasks for which fees could be recovered and those for which fees could not be recovered
In Vasquez, the California Supreme Court clarified its ruling in Graham and held that the catalyst theory is not applicable when a party "successfully obtain[s] a stipulated injunction that was entered as a judgment and thus brought about a judicially recognized change in the parties' legal relationship."
42 U.S.C. § 1988 Cited 21,803 times 43 Legal Analyses
Finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the term "costs" as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)