§Why CasetextPricing

LAFFITTE v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL (BRENNAN)

Appellant’s Petition for Review

71 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 6,637 times   505 Legal Analyses
    Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

  2. Jones v. GN Netcom, Inc.

    654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 1,456 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts should "award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained," even where counting all hours reasonably spent would produce a larger fees award

  3. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.

    290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,075 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding state law governing underlying claims in a diversity action “also governs the award of fees”

  4. Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 997 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance

  5. In re Mercury Interactive Corp.

    618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 417 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Rule 23(h), class members must be given a full and fair opportunity to examine and object to attorneys' fees motion

  6. City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation

    495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974)   Cited 1,389 times
    Holding that Section 4 does not authorize award of attorney's fees to a plaintiff who settles his claim with the defendant

  7. Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

    34 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 413 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the trial court may consider results obtained in awarding a fee multiplier

  8. Serrano v. Priest

    20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977)   Cited 942 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that denying benefits of the private attorney general rule to funded public-interest attorneys would be essentially inconsistent with the rule itself

  9. Fischel v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S.

    307 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 294 times
    Finding no error where district court awarded fees under lodestar method and failed to compare lodestar with twenty-five percent benchmark

  10. Matter of Continental Ill. Sec. Litigation

    962 F.2d 566 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 396 times
    Holding that when a common fund case has been prosecuted on a contingent basis, plaintiffs' counsel must be compensated adequately for the risk of non-payment

  11. Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1105   Cited 2,089 times

    (a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion

  12. Rule 3.769 - Settlement of class actions

    Cal. R. 3.769   Cited 67 times

    (a) Court approval after hearing A settlement or compromise of an entire class action, or of a cause of action in a class action, or as to a party, requires the approval of the court after hearing. (b) Attorney's fees Any agreement, express or implied, that has been entered into with respect to the payment of attorney's fees or the submission of an application for the approval of attorney's fees must be set forth in full in any application for approval of the dismissal or settlement of an action