§Why CasetextPricing

LAFFITTE v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL (BRENNAN)

Appellant’s Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

20 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Serrano v. Priest

    20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977)   Cited 940 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

  3. Lindy Bros. Bldrs., Phila. v. Am. R. S. San

    487 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1973)   Cited 875 times
    Finding "value of an attorney's time generally is reflected in his normal billing rate"

  4. Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.

    91 Cal.App.4th 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 225 times
    Finding that application of California law to a class settlement was appropriate when "substantial numbers of class members are located in California"

  5. Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc.

    82 Cal.App.4th 19 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 190 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting the same for state law claims in cases involving a common fund

  6. Brytus v. Spang Company

    203 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2000)   Cited 110 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that common fund fees can be appropriate in both settled and litigated cases where statutory fees are available

  7. Chavez v. Netflix

    162 Cal.App.4th 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 86 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to intervene without specifying reasons for such denial where "request to intervene was untimely"

  8. Consumer Privacy Cases

    175 Cal.App.4th 545 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 81 times
    Considering both methods “ ‘anchors the trial court's analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney's services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary’ ”

  9. Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.

    48 Cal.App.4th 1794 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 110 times
    In Dunk v. Ford Motor Company, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1809, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 483 (Dunk), in the context of a class action settlement, the court disapproved an attorney fee award the plaintiff attempted to justify as a small percentage of the settlement's value.

  10. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court

    126 Cal.App.4th 1253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 71 times
    Upholding disqualification under California's “divided loyalties” rule where the named plaintiff was a lawyer represented by the law firm at which he worked, and co-counsel on his case also partnered with his law firm in similar lawsuits