§Why CasetextPricing

In re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation

MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Attorney Fees 3562

58 Cited authorities

  1. Hensley v. Eckerhart

    461 U.S. 424 (1983)   Cited 21,567 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

  2. Blum v. Stenson

    465 U.S. 886 (1984)   Cited 8,814 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”

  3. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

    150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 3,051 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominate[d]" over "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws" where a nationwide class of minivan buyers’ claims turned on "questions of [the manufacturer’s] prior knowledge of the [vehicle’s] deficiency, the design defect, and a damages remedy"

  4. Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council

    483 U.S. 711 (1987)   Cited 958 times
    Holding enhancements generally inappropriate

  5. Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.

    488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974)   Cited 7,673 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the novelty and difficulty of the questions" involved in the case is a factor in the determination of a reasonable fee

  6. Staton v. Boeing Co.

    327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,926 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"

  7. 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

  8. Camacho v. Bridgeport

    523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,471 times
    Holding that fees-on-fees must be calculated using the lodestar method

  9. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.

    290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,074 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding state law governing underlying claims in a diversity action “also governs the award of fees”

  10. In re Cendant Corp. Litigation

    264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 712 times
    Holding that the PSLRA is clear that "the power to `select and retain' lead counsel belongs . . . to the lead plaintiff, and the court's role is confined to deciding whether to `approve' that choice" and that should the court disagree with the lead plaintiffs choice "it should clearly state why . . . and should direct the lead plaintiff to undertake an acceptable selection process"