§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition To Motion For Attorneys Fees And Costs

Motion

7 Cited authorities

  1. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler

    22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,239 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

  2. Serrano v. Priest

    20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977)   Cited 951 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. Chavez v. City of Los Angles

    47 Cal.4th 970 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 292 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reduced fee award is appropriate where a claimant achieves only limited success

  4. Serrano v. Unruh

    32 Cal.3d 621 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 417 times
    Holding that "unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust," "parties who qualify for a fee should recover for all hours reasonably spent, including those on fee-related matters."

  5. Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank

    92 Cal.App.4th 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 157 times
    Reversing trial court's fee enhancement because there was no justification for increasing the lodestar award

  6. Meister v. Regents of the University of Calif

    67 Cal.App.4th 437 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 132 times
    Holding that trial court may reduce attorney fee award on basis of plaintiff's rejection of informal settlement offer that exceeded plaintiff's ultimate recovery

  7. Best v. California Apprenticeship Council

    193 Cal.App.3d 1448 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that "the term 'action' in section 1021.5 [a statute allowing courts to award fees in 'in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest'] encompasses administrative proceedings which were useful and necessary to the public interest litigation"