Friend v. Kolodzieczak

7 Citing briefs

  1. Fraley et al v. Facebook, Inc.

    RESPONSE

    Filed September 27, 2013

    Id. at 1125 (citing Friend v. Kolodzieczak, 72 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 1995)). The district court there ultimately excluded over half of the objectors’ claimed hours that had been “expended in unsuccessful efforts,” explaining that objectors were entitled to compensation only for the hours spent on successfully challenging the plaintiffs’ counsels’ fee request.

  2. Fraley et al v. Facebook, Inc.

    RESPONSE

    Filed September 23, 2013

    Id. at 1125 (citing Friend v. Kolodzieczak, 72 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 1995)). The district court there ultimately excluded over half of the objectors’ claimed hours that had been “expended in unsuccessful efforts,” explaining that objectors were entitled to compensation only for the hours spent on successfully challenging the plaintiffs’ counsels’ fee request.

  3. Garcia v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP et al

    MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs

    Filed June 7, 2012

    of Education, 412 U.S. 427, 428; 93 S. Ct. 2201, 2202; 37 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1973). 14 Friend v. Kolodzieczak, 72 F.3d 1386, 1389 (9th Cir. 1995). 15 See accompanying declarations.

  4. Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.

    MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards

    Filed July 20, 2010

    The lodestar figure is based on the total number of reasonable attorney hours expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate for each attorney involved in the litigation. Friend v. Kolodzieczak, 72 F.3d 1386, 1389 (9th Cir. 1995). It is appropriate to calculate attorneys’ fees at prevailing rates to compensate for delay in receipt of payment.

  5. Lofton v. Bank of America Corporation et al

    MOTION for Settlement Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement; Attorneys' Fees & Incentive Award

    Filed April 8, 2009

    Lealao, 82 Cal. App. 4th. at 26; Friend v. Kolodzieczak, 72 F.3d 1386, 1389 (9th Cir. 1995). It is proper to calculate attorneys’ fees at prevailing rates to compensate for delay in receipt of payment.

  6. Latta et al v. Otter et al

    MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiffs Motion for Reasonable Attorneys Fees and Expenses Through 5/23/2014

    Filed December 19, 2014

    Under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), post-judgment interest is allowed on money judgments in civil cases “from the date of the entry of the judgment.” This statute applies to attorney fee awards under § 1988, and the interest accrues “from the date that entitlement to fees is secured . . . .” Friend v. Kolodzieczak, 72 F.3d 1386, 1391–92 (9th Cir. 1995). In Friend, the Ninth Circuit affirmed an award of post-judgment interest from the date on which the district court first entered its order on attorney fees related to the litigation on the merits.

  7. Valentine et al v. NebuAd, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM of Points & Authorities in Support of re MOTION for Approval of Attorneys' Fees & Costs

    Filed November 2, 2011

    Class Counsel Reasonably Incurred a Lodestar Approaching $1,000,000 The lodestar figure, or “touchstone,” is based on the total number of reasonable attorney hours expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate for each attorney involved in the litigation. Lealao, 82 Cal. App.4th at 26; Friend v. Kolodzieczak, 72 F.3d 1386, 1389 (9th Cir. 1995). Absent extreme circumstances, Class Counsel is entitled to be compensated for “all hours reasonably expended.”