S1983, Fees
Error to deny fees for S1983 action, as although nominal claims were awarded in a suit seeking compensatory damages, the primary goal of the suit was to change government policy.
No error in denial of fees under state statute, as the other party prevailed on the state law claims.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/14/13-56973.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Fees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fees. Show all posts
Ninth Circuit: Mike McGee v. China Electric Motor
Securities, Fees
No error in district court's use of lodestar as opposed to percentage of fund, but the lodestar analysis was insufficiently explained.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-56903.pdf
No error in district court's use of lodestar as opposed to percentage of fund, but the lodestar analysis was insufficiently explained.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-56903.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Javier Bravo Sr. v. City of Santa Maria
S1983 / Fees
In determining the award of fees for a S1983 action, recoveries by nonparties in cases resulting from the same facts and circumstances can be considered where the outcome of the case resulted in significant public benefits.
Error not to offset the award of costs by the costs already paid.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/12/14-55557.pdf
In determining the award of fees for a S1983 action, recoveries by nonparties in cases resulting from the same facts and circumstances can be considered where the outcome of the case resulted in significant public benefits.
Error not to offset the award of costs by the costs already paid.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/12/14-55557.pdf
Federal Circuit: Haggart v. US
Class actions, fees, estoppel
Where the government is the deft in a class action under a statutory cause of action that shifts fees, it has standing to contest the fee award.
As there is a policy interest in government candor, the government is not estopped from challenging fees that it now claims to have mistakenly not opposed an an earlier proceeding.
As the government's objection was to the mechanics of the disbursement, previous acquiescence to the plan does not judicially estop it from challenging it later. (In a footnote, a note that estoppel probably doesn't apply to FG.)
Abuse of discretion for lower court to approve settlement that relied on valuations of unassessed property without any disclosure of methodology of valuation.
Uncertainty as to the precise valuations of individual claims does not bar application of the common fund doctrine.
Opt-in classes can be subject to the common fund doctrine, and as there is no statutory requirement that the class members pay fees, a fee agreement is subject to equitable challenge.
Where equitable a fee-shifting statute displaces allocation of fees under the common fund doctrine. Circuit split flagged.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-5106.Opinion.1-6-2016.1.PDF
Where the government is the deft in a class action under a statutory cause of action that shifts fees, it has standing to contest the fee award.
As there is a policy interest in government candor, the government is not estopped from challenging fees that it now claims to have mistakenly not opposed an an earlier proceeding.
As the government's objection was to the mechanics of the disbursement, previous acquiescence to the plan does not judicially estop it from challenging it later. (In a footnote, a note that estoppel probably doesn't apply to FG.)
Abuse of discretion for lower court to approve settlement that relied on valuations of unassessed property without any disclosure of methodology of valuation.
Uncertainty as to the precise valuations of individual claims does not bar application of the common fund doctrine.
Opt-in classes can be subject to the common fund doctrine, and as there is no statutory requirement that the class members pay fees, a fee agreement is subject to equitable challenge.
Where equitable a fee-shifting statute displaces allocation of fees under the common fund doctrine. Circuit split flagged.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-5106.Opinion.1-6-2016.1.PDF
Ninth Circuit: Richard Shirrod v. OWCP
Award of fees - Longshoreman's Act
Error to use statewide index as opposed to market-specific.
Error to include workmans comp numbers in the lodestar calculations.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/31/13-70613.pdf
Error to use statewide index as opposed to market-specific.
Error to include workmans comp numbers in the lodestar calculations.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/31/13-70613.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)