Second District, Division 6 Rebuffs Challenges to FEHA Multipliers.
Plaintiffs winning claims under the California Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq., are normally awarded fee-shifting awards. Trial courts have ability to enhance the lodestar—the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate—by a multiplier in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services rendered. (Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1134 (2001).) In the next case, plaintiff won a $1.2 million compensatory damage award (reduced from $1.7 million by the trial court), a $1.2 million punitive damage award (reduced from $16.7 million by the trial judge), and awards of attorney's fees to one of his firms in the amount of $300,709.50 (using a 1.4 lodestar multiplier) and to another firm in the amount of $343,265.60 (using a 1.6 lodestar multiplier). Corporate defendant was not happy and appealed, even after plaintiff accepted the remittitur.
The Second District, Division Six, in Stevens v. Vons Companies, Case Nos. B196755 & B201528 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 20, 2009) (unpublished), affirmed the attorney's fees award in plaintiff's favor.
In deciding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in fixing the fee awards, the appellate panel, in a 3-0 decision by Justice Yegan, made these points:
· The FEHA fee award is justified even if plaintiff was only vindicating his personal interest rather than a broader public interest (Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie, 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1170-1171, 1172 (1998));
· The contingent nature of the fee arrangement with plaintiff's counsel is a proper factor to consider for multiplier purposes (Greene v. Dillingham Constr., N.A., Inc., 101 Cal.App.4th 418, 428-429 (2002));
· The difficulty of the case is appropriately considered when calculating the lodestar amount (Greene, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at 426-427);
· Exceptional results obtained—such as the total $2.4 million award for a plaintiff previously only making a salary of $750 per week—can be used to enhance a lodestar calculation (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal.4th 553, 582 (2004)); and
· The three-year delay in payment between the commencement of work by plaintiff's counsel and the fee award is another proper lodestar enhancement factor (Graham, supra, 34 Cal.4th at 583-584).
BLOG UNDERVIEW—The trial court's reduction of punitive damages to a 1:1 ratio was sustained, with Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S.Ct. 2605 (2008) cited in support of this result.
Comments