38 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,677 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
Perdue v. Kenny A.
559 U.S. 542 (2010) Cited 2,494 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that enhancement is permitted only in "rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered"
Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (1984) Cited 8,870 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”
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles
568 U.S. 588 (2013) Cited 697 times 74 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff may not evade CAFA jurisdiction by stipulating that the class would seek damages below CAFA's jurisdictional threshold
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 3,068 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"
Jones v. GN Netcom, Inc.
654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 1,472 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
Gates v. Deukmejian
987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 1,693 times
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying exception to the forum rule where local counsel were unavailable
Welch v. Metropolitan Life
480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 952 times
Holding district court on remand could reduce requested rates based on "evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested" although the party opposing the request for fees had not previously introduced any evidence undermining requested rates
McCown v. City of Fontana
565 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 421 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a comparison of damages awarded to damages sought" is relevant to a determination of the reasonable fee award
Jordan v. Multnomah County
815 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 723 times
Holding that there is a strong presumption that the lodestar represents a reasonable fee
Section 1712 - Coupon settlements
28 U.S.C. § 1712 Cited 147 times 18 Legal Analyses
Providing that "the portion of any attorney's fee award to class counsel that is attributable to the award of the coupons shall be based on the value to class members of the coupons that are redeemed"

Steve Chambers et al v. Whirlpool Corporation et al

38 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 enhancement is permitted only in "rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered"

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”

Holding that a plaintiff may not evade CAFA jurisdiction by stipulating that the class would seek damages below CAFA's jurisdictional threshold

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

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying exception to the forum rule where local counsel were unavailable

Holding district court on remand could reduce requested rates based on "evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested" although the party opposing the request for fees had not previously introduced any evidence undermining requested rates

Holding that "a comparison of damages awarded to damages sought" is relevant to a determination of the reasonable fee award

Holding that there is a strong presumption that the lodestar represents a reasonable fee

Providing that "the portion of any attorney's fee award to class counsel that is attributable to the award of the coupons shall be based on the value to class members of the coupons that are redeemed"