26 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,574 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
Farrar v. Hobby
506 U.S. 103 (1992) Cited 3,577 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an award of nominal damages, but not purely declaratory relief, suffices for prevailing party status
Riverside v. Rivera
477 U.S. 561 (1986) Cited 1,416 times
Holding a defendant is not liable for § 1988 attorney fees which are incurred after a Rule 68 offer of judgment "where the judgment recovered by the plaintiff is less than the offer"
Ketchum v. Moses
24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) Cited 1,736 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof
PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler
22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000) Cited 1,217 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding no error in awarding "prevailing market rate for comparable legal services in San Francisco, where counsel is located" in a case heard in Los Angeles
Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd.
148 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 1,123 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fact that "[plaintiff] was not reimbursed for his expenses" points toward independent contractor status
Christian Reasearch Institute v. Alnor
165 Cal.App.4th 1315 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 359 times
Holding that evidence submitted in support of an attorney's fees motion should "allow the court to consider . . . how much time the attorneys spent on particular claims, and whether the hours were reasonably expended"
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
Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp.
178 Cal.App.4th 44 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 316 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that meals are not recoverable under Cal. Civ. P.Code § 1033.5.
Chavez v. City of Los Angles
47 Cal.4th 970 (Cal. 2010) Cited 287 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a reduced fee award is appropriate where a claimant achieves only limited success

Opposition Defendants Century Theatres Inc And Cinemark Usa Incs Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For Attorneys Fees

26 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 an award of nominal damages, but not purely declaratory relief, suffices for prevailing party status

Holding a defendant is not liable for § 1988 attorney fees which are incurred after a Rule 68 offer of judgment "where the judgment recovered by the plaintiff is less than the offer"

Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof

Finding no error in awarding "prevailing market rate for comparable legal services in San Francisco, where counsel is located" in a case heard in Los Angeles

Holding that the fact that "[plaintiff] was not reimbursed for his expenses" points toward independent contractor status

Holding that evidence submitted in support of an attorney's fees motion should "allow the court to consider . . . how much time the attorneys spent on particular claims, and whether the hours were reasonably 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 meals are not recoverable under Cal. Civ. P.Code § 1033.5.

Holding that a reduced fee award is appropriate where a claimant achieves only limited success