Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Attorneys' Fees

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to a prevailing plaintiff in an individual FLSA retaliation claim, properly apportioning total fees among several plaintiffs, and attributing to this prevailing plaintiff only those fees reasonably incurred in prosecuting her individual claims. Read More

Since plaintiff won jury verdicts for actual damages and emotional distress, but the jury awarded $0 on plaintiff's claim for defendant's profits from the use of plaintiff's likeness, neither party was a "prevailing party" for purposes of attorney fees. Read More

In calculating value of class action coupon settlement for purposes of awarding attorney fees, only the value of the coupon credits actually used by class members should have been counted; the district court erred by performing its fee calculation based on the full value of all the credits available to class members.  Read More

For purposes of comparison with the amount of the judgment, pre-offer fees and costs are added to the amount of a rejected 998 settlement offer that is silent as to fees and costs since upon acceptance the offeree would have been entitled to an award of pre-offer fees and costs in addition to the amount of the settlement. Read More

The trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider all required factors under the Rule of Court governing minors’ compromise, which permits the reduction of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ contingency fees under certain circumstances. Read More

In calculating value of class action coupon settlement for purposes of awarding attorney fees, only the value of the coupon credits actually used by class members should have been counted; the district court erred by performing its fee calculation based on the full value of all the credits available to class members.  Read More

For purposes of comparison with the amount of the judgment, pre-offer fees and costs are added to the amount of a rejected 998 settlement offer that is silent as to fees and costs since upon acceptance the offeree would have been entitled to an award of pre-offer fees and costs in addition to the amount of the settlement. Read More

The trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider all required factors under the Rule of Court governing minors’ compromise, which permits the reduction of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ contingency fees under certain circumstances. Read More

Section 9 of the standard-form deed of trust, which allows the lender to take steps to preserve its interest in the property (including defending litigation) and charge the cost of doing so to the borrower, is in the nature of an indemnity provision under which the lender could add its litigation expenses to the principal debt secured by the deed… Read More

When a government agency agrees to produce requested documents but its former officer files a mandamus action against it seeking to bar that disclosure (in this case on attorney-client privilege grounds) and names the record requester as a real party in interest, the mandamus suit is not itself considered a suit to enforce the Public Records Act, and hence attorney… Read More

The district court abused its discretion in denying attorney fees to the plaintiff, who owned the copyright in a film that defendant illegally downloaded and shared online, since the fact that plaintiff settled for only $750 in statutory damages didn't show limited success but did emphasize the need for an attorney fee award.  Read More

The Federal Trade Commission’s Holder Rule limits a creditor’s liability for claims by restricting the debtor’s total recovery (including attorney fees) to the amount paid by the debtor under the assigned contract. Read More

The State Housing Law allows a city to recover its attorney fees if it sues to have a receiver appointed to remedy code violations in a non-compliant building, but not if the city intervenes in a lender’s suit for appointment of a receiver. Read More

1 6 7 8 9 10