Grant Of Full Lodestar Request Was The Main Reason For Refusing Multiplier, A Determination Affirmed On Appeal.
A plaintiff prevailed on FEHA claims against defendant in Scudder v. Dept. of Transportation, Case No. B293859 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 14, 2020) (unpublished). Plaintiff then moved for attorney’s fees in a lodestar amount of $592,075 augmented by a positive 2.0 multiplier because the case was taken on a contingency basis and it supposedly took a large portion of the small prosecuting firm’s time. The trial judge awarded the full lodestar request, but he denied the multiplier request. He did so because the case was not exceptionally complex (involving one plaintiff), no exceptional skill was displayed in prosecuting the matter, no specific facts were shown to demonstrate preclusion from other employment, and the lodestar grant fully compensated plaintiff’s attorneys for the time they expended.
The 2/5 DCA affirmed.
First of all, the appellate court found there was an inadequate record because no reporter’s transcript or agreed/settled statement on the hearing was presented for review such that there was no presumption the trial judge failed to consider the proper factors in coming to a multiplier denial decision. (We have posted on this point many times before; where failure to consider factors or discretion is involved, it is imperative to have some type of record on what happened at a fee hearing.) However, even on the merits, the trial judge was not required to grant a multiplier—with the available record vindicating his reasoning (especially given that the full lodestar award compensated attorneys for their work effort).
Comments