Plaintiff Requested $492,000 In Fees (Inclusive Of A 1.5 Multiplier).
You might think the plaintiff appealed in this one, but he did not. The defense appealed the fee recovery, even though the trial judge had awarded a much lower fee recovery from the opening request.
In Velez v. Kohl Building Maintenance, Inc., Case No. B300253 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 2, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff won a very contested 5-day FEHA jury trial to the tune of $25,000 on discrimination/failure to accommodate claims (but losing on a retaliation claim and losing an attempt to garner punitive damages). Plaintiff then moved to recover a $492,000 FEHA fee award ($328,000 lodestar and a 1.5 multiplier). The defense contested that no fees were warranted based on Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 970 (2010) [our Leading Case No. 13], because the case could have been tried as a limited case. The trial judge rejected that notion, but did reduce for block billing, duplication (especially a new group of lawyers getting up to speed), excessive hourly rates for the experience of the attorneys involved, lack of success on the one claim, and unnecessary multiple attendance of attorneys at court appearances/trial.
The defense appealed in this one, but appellant gained no reversal of fortune on appeal. The problem with reliance on Chavez for an outright denial is that this decision is discretionary, with there being some claims which certainly would lead a prudent plaintiff’s attorney to not bring the case as a limited matter. The reductions in amount were substantial, with the law in the FEHA area being that the fee award does not need to be proportional to the damages obtained—especially after a 5-day jury trial.
Comments