Lodestar Calculation

48 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc.
  746 F.2d 4· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 98×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in its interpretation of attorney fee statutes by tying reasonable hourly rates too closely to historical billing rates and by misapplying the standard for contingency multipliers.
• In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. Appeal of Walter E. Riordan, P.A.
  751 F.2d 562· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-13 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the equitable fund doctrine does not universally preclude using an initial settlement fund to finance further litigation, provided there is a prior agreement or judicial approval, and that a partial settlement's impact on a contingency multiplier should consid
• Wojtkowski v. Cade
  725 F.2d 127· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court properly denied prejudgment interest on damages and attorney's fees, and that the awarded attorney's fee was reasonable.
• Sierra Club & Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  769 F.2d 796· D.C. Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 38×
  The court awarded attorneys' fees for successful claims under the Clean Air Act but denied fees for unsuccessful claims, applying the 'modicum of success' standard and issue-by-issue analysis.
• Student Pub. Interest Research Grp. OF NEW Jersey, Inc. v. AT & T Bell Labs.
  842 F.2d 1436· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-24 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a for-profit public interest law firm is entitled to fees calculated at the prevailing market rate for equivalent legal services, rather than its own lower billing rate, to ensure adequate compensation and attract competent counsel.
• Juanita v. Ramos
  743 So. 2d 24· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-03-24 ·cited 32×
  Flight attendants objected to a class action settlement with tobacco companies and challenged the trial court's approval of the settlement, attorney's fees, and denial of intervention motions. The appellate court partially reversed, granting intervention to eight objectors but af
• Doering v. Union Cnty. Bd. OF Chosen Freeholders
  857 F.2d 191· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the finding of a Rule 11 violation and the lodestar calculation for attorney's fees but vacated the monetary sanction amount, remanding for consideration of mitigating factors.
• In re William M. Kunstler. In re Barry Nakell. In re Lewis Pitts v. Britt
  914 F.2d 505· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Rule 11 sanctions can be imposed after a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), and that the attorneys violated Rule 11 by failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law, and by filing the complaint for an improper purpose.
• Cunningham v. The City OF McKEESPORT
  753 F.2d 262· 3d Cir.· 1985-01-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in reducing the lodestar hours, applying a rate other than the attorneys' normal billing rate, and applying a negative multiplier without sufficient record basis or proper legal grounds.
• Rode v. Dellarciprete
  892 F.2d 1177· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-04 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's attorney fee award, remanding for further explanation on certain reductions.
• Jackson v. The LAW Firm OF O'Hara
  875 F.2d 1224· 6th Cir.· 1989-05-26 ·cited 19×
  The court affirmed the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against an attorney for filing a baseless malpractice action but vacated the amount of sanctions, remanding for recalculation based on prevailing market rates and consideration of the attorney's ability to pay.
• Wells v. Bowen
  855 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1988-08-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that attorneys can seek fees under both the Social Security Act (SSA) and the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), and that SSA fees may be enhanced to reflect the risks of contingent fee arrangements, unlike EAJA fees. The court also clarified that bad faith fees u
• KIM v. Fujikawa
  871 F.2d 1427· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 14×
  A breaching fiduciary bears the burden of proving what portion of a prohibited transaction did not result in a loss to the plan; ERISA does not provide a right of contribution among fiduciaries.
• Trans World Tire Co. & Transp. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hagness
  651 So. 2d 124· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-02-09 ·cited 13×
  The appellate court affirmed a workers' compensation order awarding an attorney's fee. The judge of compensation claims (JCC) departed downward from the statutory guideline fee, awarding $35,000 instead of the calculated $45,610.53, solely because the guideline fee resulted in a
• Dutchak v. Central States
  932 F.2d 591· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court did not err in approving a fee multiplier of two and in its calculation of the lodestar figure, affirming the award of attorney's fees.
• George v. GTE Directories Corp.
  114 F. Supp. 2d 1281· M.D. Fla.· 2000-08-28 ·cited 12×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs, granted the motion for prejudgment interest, and granted the defendant's motion for an extension of time.
• Jackson v. Ill. Prisoner Review Bd.
  856 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that fees for an unsuccessful, unrelated ex post facto claim are not compensable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and that a fee award must be reduced to reflect partial success on a related claim.
• Forest Henry Shipes v. Trinity Indus., Inc.
  883 F.2d 339· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 10×
• Sweeney v. Athens Reg'l Med. Ctr.
  917 F.2d 1560· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court correctly interpreted and reformed the April 22, 1988 fee agreement, but erred in its application of the agreement regarding the documentation of hours spent by attorneys.
• Gates v. Deukmejian
  977 F.2d 1300· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to articulate a clear reason for the ten percent fee reduction and by not independently reviewing the fee application. The court also held that enhancement for contingency is not permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1
• Annabelle Lipsett v. Gumersindo Blanco
  975 F.2d 934· 1st Cir.· 1992-09-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the lodestar calculation was largely correct, the enhancement for risk of nonpayment and exceptional performance was improper, and certain vague time entries should be discounted, requiring a reduction in the total fee award.
• Atlantis Bldg. B Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Skawski
  544 So. 2d 1069· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-06-07 ·cited 8×
  Trial court's award of attorney's fees with a contingency risk multiplier of 2 was reversed because the court failed to provide adequate findings of fact to support the multiplier under Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe.
• Spell v. McDANIEL
  852 F.2d 762· 4th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 8×
  The Fourth Circuit significantly reduced the attorney's fees requested by the plaintiff for post-trial appellate services, finding the claimed hours to be duplicative, overstaffed, and an unreasonable exercise of billing judgment. The court awarded $80,295.69, which included a re
• Blanchard v. Bergeron
  831 F.2d 563· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 8×
  A contingency fee agreement between a plaintiff and their attorney caps the attorney fee award under the Civil Rights Act, even if the lodestar calculation would result in a higher amount.
• Amisub (American Hospital) Inc. v. Hernandez
  817 So. 2d 870· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-04-24 ·cited 4×
  Amisub appeals an award of attorney's fees under Florida's demand for judgment statute, arguing the demand was untimely and that a contingency fee multiplier was improperly applied. The court affirms the award of attorney's fees but reverses the application of the multiplier, hol
• Smith & Burnetti, P.A. v. Faulk
  677 So. 2d 404· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-07-26 ·cited 4×
  A law firm may recover a quantum meruit fee for representation terminated due to client conduct creating an ethical conflict, even absent a fee agreement, when the client's actions made continued representation legally impossible or would violate ethical rules.
• Edsel Gusman v. Unisys Corp.
  986 F.2d 1146· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the judgment on the merits but vacated the award of attorneys' fees, remanding for further proceedings.
• David v. The City OF Scranton
  633 F.2d 676· 3d Cir.· 1980-10-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a district court must determine the reasonableness of attorneys fees for litigating an opposed fee application when an award for the underlying litigation has been made.
• Lyden v. Howerton
  731 F. Supp. 1545· S.D. Fla.· 1990-02-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that plaintiffs were entitled to attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) because their application was timely, they were prevailing parties, the government's position was not substantially justified, and no circumstances made an award unjust.
• First Baptist Church OF Cape Coral v. Compass Constr., Inc.
  115 So. 3d 946· Fla.· 2013-05-30 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that alternative fee recovery clauses in attorney fee agreements are valid, even when they use an hourly rate as the alternative basis for payment and result in a higher fee award than what the client actually paid. The court resolved a conflict bet
• BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Henry
  336 So. 3d 1255· Fla. 5th DCA· 2022-04-08 ·cited 1×
  Federal law governs attorney's fee awards under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and contingency multipliers are prohibited under federal fee-shifting statutes pursuant to City of Burlington v. Dague. The trial court erred in applying a contingency multiplier and must recalculate
• Davidson Drugs, Inc. v. Staunton R. Harrison
  546 So. 2d 432· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-06-16 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed judgment for an employee in an age discrimination case under the ADEA and Florida Human Rights Act, rejecting the employee's cross-appeal argument that attorney's fees should be enhanced by a contingency multiplier.
• Global Glass Techs., Inc. v. Research Frontiers, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-25
  The court modified the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, awarding a higher attorney fee sanction of $320,819.88, finding the requested hourly rate for lead counsel reasonable and rejecting further reduction based on financial hardship.
• Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. First Class Cruises, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-07-17
  The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for default final judgment, finding that the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint established liability for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.
• Scandalios v. TCC Wireless, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-18
  The court recommended approval of the FLSA settlement agreement, finding it a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute, including the attorney's fees and costs.
• Perez v. Margaritas V&P, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-14
  The court recommended granting the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
• BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Henry
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2022-04-07
  BMW appealed a trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs to consumer Marie Henry in her successful Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim. The court held that federal law—specifically the prohibition in City of Burlington v. Dague against contingency multipliers in federal fee-s
• Atain Specialty Ins. Co. v. Henry's Carpet & Interiors, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-09-30
  The court held that a dismissal of an insurer's declaratory judgment action, even without prejudice, triggers the mandatory award of attorneys' fees and costs to the insured under Florida law, and the question of fees is ripe for adjudication upon dismissal.
• Caiazza v. Carmine Marceno
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-03-30
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motions for attorney's fees and costs, awarding a reduced amount to the prevailing plaintiff.
• Warren Tech., Inc. v. Ul LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-03-10
  The court adopted in part the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the defendant's motion for attorneys' fees in the amount of $152,062.50.
• Harvey v. The Hammel & Kaplan Co., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-07
  The court granted final approval of the class action settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate, while deferring the issue of a service award to the class representative.
• TMH Med. Servs., LLC v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-07-21
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, granting in part the defendant's motion for attorneys' fees, awarding $211,720.50.
• Cozen O' Connor, PLC v. Mintz Truppman, P.A.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-06-17
  The court granted prohibition, ruling that the state circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims that a law firm violated mediation confidentiality. The court found that the gravamen of the lawsuit was to relitigate attorney's fees already adjudicated by a fed
• Pena v. Rdi, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-04-16
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, awarding $3,979.50 after reducing the requested amount for work outside the scope of the prior order.
• Healthplan Servs., Inc. v. Dixit
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-12-20
  The court held that while the plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees and costs for discovery violations, the requested hourly rates were excessive and reduced to reflect the prevailing market rates in the relevant jurisdiction.
• Peterson v. Hecht Consulting Corp.
  226 So. 3d 999· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-08-09
  John and Danielle Peterson appeal a prevailing party fee judgment awarded to their former public adjuster, Hecht Consulting Corp. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the prevailing party determination and lodestar calculation of $29,025 but reverses and remands for reduct
• Martin Cnty. v. Polivka Paving, Inc.
  82 So. 3d 1023· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-08-17
  Florida appellate court reversed and remanded attorney's fees award in construction contract dispute, requiring trial court to recalculate fees by separating time spent on unsuccessful home office overhead damages claim from successful claims.
• Gray v. Fla. First Fin. Grp., Inc.
  359 F. Supp. 2d 1316· M.D. Fla.· 2005-03-02
  The court held that the plaintiff's requested attorney's fees and costs were reasonable and warranted under the FDCPA, granting the motion for an award.