Multiplier Is Not Automatic, So Reversed To Consider Proper Factors On Appeal.
In Campos v. Kennedy, Case Nos. B266663/B268812 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 13, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff won a $225,000 compensatory verdict under civil rights fee shifting provisions for sexual battery. Later, the trial court awarded plaintiff $ 2,924,830 in statutory fees, but augmented by a 2.0 multiplier to a reduced lodestar request.
The fee award got reversed and remanded on appeal.
The defense first tried to argue no fee award was in order because the compensatory award got offset by a good faith settlement offer by another defendant. The problem with this argument was one of timing, with the defense never making moves to challenge a substantively amended judgment which would take the amount to zero. The failure to challenge the amended judgment dispatched this argument.
With respect to the fee award, the appellate court had serious reservations about the 2.0 multiplier awarded by the trial judge. The main flaw was that the trial judge thought a multiplier was automatic and normally should be awarded, but this is not the law given the lower court must exercise certain factors under Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138 (2001) [our Leading Case No. 8] to reach such a favorable multiplier result. However, the appellate court did go on to address multiplier factors, suggesting maybe the trial judge seriously should reconsider his decision on granting a multiplier on remand.
Comments