Lodestar/Private Attorney General: 1021.5 Fees Must Be Based On Lodestar Methodology, Not Percentage Of Recovery Test

Re-Do Was The Result In This One.

           Above:  Lockheed Model 18 Lodestar.  Source: www.airwaysmuseum.com

            In Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Company, Inc., Case No. B270168 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 3, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge in a class action case awarded $29,409 in attorney’s fees to class counsel under the private attorney general statute based on the percentage-of-recovery method rather than the lodestar method.  Class counsel has requested a lodestar of almost $473,000 plus a multiplier based on risk.  The class recovery was $88,227, such that the actual fee award was a third of that.

            The 2/2 DCA reversed.  Notwithstanding the equities, the appellate court determined that the lodestar method had to govern as a matter of law based on Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25, 48, fn. 23 (1977) (Serrano III) when it came to a private attorney general recovery.  Even though the percentage-of-recovery method could be used as a cross check, the lodestar governed until Serrano III is abrogated for 1021.5 purposes, according to the appellate court.  A re-do was required, one based on the lodestar methodology.