Lodestar Method

957 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 111 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• In re Sunbeam Securities Litigation
  176 F. Supp. 2d 1323· S.D. Fla.· 2001-11-29 ·cited 23×
  The court approved the proposed settlement with Arthur Andersen LLP and awarded attorneys' fees at 25% of the settlement fund, finding it fair, adequate, and reasonable.
• Gonzalez v. Angel Veloso, M.D.
  731 So. 2d 63· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-03-31 ·cited 23×·via Lodestar Fee
  Caridad Gonzalez appeals an award of attorney's fees in a medical malpractice wrongful death case, challenging the trial court's rejection of a multiplier on the lodestar fee and denial of expert witness fees. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that the s
• King v. Palmer
  950 F.2d 771· D.C. Cir.· 1991-12-13 ·cited 23×
  The en banc court overruled prior precedent (McKenzie) and held that contingency enhancements to attorney's fees under federal fee-shifting statutes are impermissible, as the plurality in Delaware Valley II dictates that a reasonable lodestar fee may not be enhanced to compensate
• Dep't of Transp. v. Robbins & Robbins, Inc.
  700 So. 2d 782· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-10-17 ·cited 22×
  The Department of Transportation appeals a trial court's award of $110,000 in attorneys' fees and $1,950.50 in expert witness fees in a condemnation case involving land taken for road widening. The appellate court reverses, finding the trial court improperly calculated fees by us
• Blits v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc.
  647 So. 2d 971· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-12-07 ·cited 22×
  Plaintiffs appealed a defense verdict and challenged the trial court's award of attorney's fees, arguing the offer of judgment lacked good faith and the court failed to make sufficient findings of fact in awarding fees. The appellate court affirmed, finding the good faith argumen
• Davis v. Mason Cnty.
  927 F.2d 1473· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the sheriff is not the final policymaker for deputy training under Washington law, and the jury instructions on municipal liability did not meet the deliberate indifference standard required by Canton v. Harris.
• 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×·via Lodestar Calculation
  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.
• Quesada v. Thomason
  850 F.2d 537· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 22×·via Lodestar Fee Calculation
  A district court cannot reduce a statutory attorney fee award below the lodestar amount based on the existence of a contingent-fee agreement or the simplicity of the case's issues.
• Quanstrom v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co.
  519 So. 2d 1135· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-02-11 ·cited 22×
  An attorney's fee agreement is a contingency fee agreement if the attorney is paid only if successful, regardless of how the fee is calculated. The application of a contingency risk multiplier is mandatory when calculating attorney's fees for a prevailing party employed on a cont
• Aubin v. Fudala
  782 F.2d 287· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 22×
  A plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on a state law negligence claim from the date suit is filed, and attorney fees under § 1988 should be awarded based on the practical extent of success, not solely on the ratio of damages awarded on civil rights claims to total damag
• Cunningham v. The City OF McKEESPORT
  753 F.2d 262· 3d Cir.· 1985-01-15 ·cited 22×·via Lodestar Calculation
  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.
• Seigal v. Merrick
  619 F.2d 160· 2d Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the expert witness fee award but reversed and remanded the attorney fee award, finding that the attorney's consent to an unfavorable appellate settlement should be considered a negative factor in evaluating his representation and fee.
• Tetrault v. Fairchild
  799 So. 2d 226· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-07-24 ·cited 21×·via Lodestar Fee
  A trial court abuses its discretion by allowing an expert witness to testify regarding matters materially different from the expert's disclosed role when such change is not properly disclosed prior to trial, as the opposing party is entitled to adequate notice and opportunity to
• Formby v. Farmers & Merchs. Bank
  904 F.2d 627· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court did not err in awarding relief beyond the jury's back pay award, in awarding liquidated damages for a willful violation of the ADEA, or in awarding attorneys' fees, as the Bank failed to properly preserve these issues for appeal.
• Askowitz v. Susan Feuer Interior Design, Inc.
  563 So. 2d 752· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-06-12 ·cited 21×·via Lodestar Fee
  This appeal addresses whether a trial court properly enhanced attorney's fees with a contingency risk multiplier in a contract dispute over interior design services. The court affirms the base lodestar fee but reverses the multiplier enhancement, holding that no evidentiary basis
• Multitech Corp. v. ST. Johns Bluff Inv. Corp.
  518 So. 2d 427· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-01-12 ·cited 21×
  Multitech appeals a summary judgment awarding St. Johns $120,000 in liquidated damages for failure to timely construct two access roads, along with a $25,000 attorney's fee award. The court reversed both awards, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding damages and that e
• Craik v. The Minn. State Univ. Bd.
  738 F.2d 348· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 21×
  The court held that attorneys' fees and costs are awarded to the prevailing plaintiffs on appeal, with a reduction for partial success and an enhancement for the risk undertaken by counsel.
• Godoy v. New River Pizza, Inc.
  565 F. Supp. 2d 1345· S.D. Fla.· 2008-07-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that attorney's fees and costs awarded under the FLSA must be reasonable, and reduced the requested amount due to billing discrepancies, inflated hours, and the attorneys' neglect in prosecuting certain aspects of the case.
• Am. Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Reg., Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty.
  278 F. Supp. 2d 1301· M.D. Fla.· 2003-06-24 ·cited 20×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to award plaintiffs $257,151.03 in attorneys' fees and $9,938.35 in costs and expenses.
• Seminole Cnty. v. Delco OIL, Inc.
  669 So. 2d 1162· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-03-22 ·cited 20×
  Seminole County appealed an attorney's fee award in an eminent domain case, challenging the trial court's calculation of $67,500 based on 25% of benefits obtained. The Fifth District reversed, holding that fees must be calculated using a lodestar-based approach adjusted by benefi
• 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.
• Brown v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  838 F.2d 451· 10th Cir.· 1988-02-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that awarding attorneys' fees as a percentage of a common fund is not per se an abuse of discretion, and that Ashland Oil is not precluded from seeking fees from the common fund.
• Thompson v. Kennickell
  836 F.2d 616· D.C. Cir.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that current market rates cannot be used to compensate for delay when the government is the defendant, and that enhancements for exceptional results require specific evidence of superior quality beyond the lodestar.
• Cleveland Nisby and Hattie West v. Comm'rs Court OF Jefferson Cnty.
  798 F.2d 134· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to articulate its reasoning for the attorney fee award in accordance with the established twelve-factor standard.
• Elbert Erkins and Samuel Denson v. Bryan
  785 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-08 ·cited 20×·via Lodestar Fee Calculation
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the standing of union members to sue, rejecting the application of the NLRA statute of limitations, affirming the calculation of misapplied funds, and upholding the attorney fee award.
• Codex Corp. v. Milgo Elec. Corp.
  717 F.2d 622· 1st Cir.· 1983-08-02 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the invalidity of the Whang '023 and Ragsdale '503 patents, found the Vilips '194 patent obvious, and upheld the award of attorney fees to Codex.
• Jaquette v. Black Hawk Cnty.
  710 F.2d 455· 8th Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of attorneys' fees but would not remand the case.
• River Bridge Corp. v. Am. Somax Ventures
  76 So. 3d 986· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-11-30 ·cited 19×·via Lodestar Amount
  River Bridge Corporation appealed a judgment and attorney's fee award in favor of American Somax Ventures. The appellate court reversed 85% of the underlying judgment for breach of a right of first refusal claim due to speculative damages testimony. The court held that the trial
• Tiramisu Intertional LLC v. Clever Imports LLC
  741 F. Supp. 2d 1279· S.D. Fla.· 2010-08-11 ·cited 19×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for permanent injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees, based on a default judgment for trademark infringement.
• Seminole Cnty. v. Clayton
  665 So. 2d 363· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-12-29 ·cited 19×
  Seminole County appealed an attorney's fees award in an eminent domain action where the trial court awarded $159,261 in fees using a 'double decker' method—combining hourly fees with a 20% bonus on the difference between settlement and initial offer. The court held that this inte
• Fontaine Davis v. City & Cnty. of SAN Francisco
  976 F.2d 1536· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-06 ·cited 19×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs, but remanded for recalculation of the lodestar to exclude time spent by law clerks on unrelated claims and to disallow public relations work not directly contributing to litigation goals. The court also a
• Jackson v. The LAW Firm OF O'Hara
  875 F.2d 1224· 6th Cir.· 1989-05-26 ·cited 19×·via Lodestar Calculation
  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.
• Trend Coin Co. v. Fuller, Feingold & Mallah, P.A.
  538 So. 2d 919· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-01-31 ·cited 19×
  Fuller Feingold & Mallah sought recovery of attorney's fees under a contingency fee agreement after being discharged by client Trend Coin Company before the contingency occurred. The trial court awarded the full contract fee, but the appellate court reversed, holding that dischar
• Wood v. Franklin Y.K. Sunn
  852 F.2d 1205· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-27 ·cited 19×
  The court held that prison staff acted with deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs, but reversed the judgment against prison administrators due to lack of personal involvement and remanded the attorney's fees award for reconsideration.
• Biggins v. The Hazen Paper Co.
  953 F.2d 1405· 1st Cir.· 1992-01-08 ·cited 18×·via Lodestar Fee
  The court held that the jury's finding of a willful ADEA violation was not supported by sufficient evidence, and the jury instruction on willfulness was erroneous. The court also found sufficient evidence for the jury to find an ADEA violation and that age was a determining facto
• Ganson v. State
  554 So. 2d 522· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-12-22 ·cited 18×
  Ganson appealed an administrative agency decision and prevailed. On remand, the court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees. Applying the lodestar methodology from Florida law, the court awarded $48,250 in attorney fees and $501.94 in cos
• Friends OF THE Earth & Atl. States Legal Found., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  834 F.2d 295· 2d Cir.· 1987-12-03 ·cited 18×
  A favorable settlement, even without adjudication of liability, can support an award of attorney's fees under the Act, but the amount awarded must be reasonable in relation to the results obtained.
• Lightfoot v. Walker
  826 F.2d 516· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-24 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of attorney's fees, finding the hours expended and hourly rates reasonable given the complexity of the litigation and the state's resistance.
• Cunningham v. The City OF McKEESPORT
  807 F.2d 49· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-12 ·cited 18×
  The court reinstated its prior order reversing the district court's judgment, finding that the Supreme Court's opinion in City of Riverside v. Rivera did not alter the prior panel's reasoning regarding attorney's fees.
• Black Grievance Comm. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co.
  802 F.2d 648· 3d Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in reducing undisputed hourly rates, in its methodology for applying lodestar adjustments, and in its calculation of the fee petition award and expert costs, requiring remand for recalculation.
• Jean Hart as Administratrix of the Estate of Levi Hart v. Bourque
  798 F.2d 519· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the lower court erred in its calculation of attorney's fees and prejudgment interest, finding the claimed hours and multiplier unjustified and the delay in payment attributable to the plaintiff.
• Ivy McFADDEN v. Detective Juan Sanchez
  710 F.2d 907· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 18×·via Lodestar Amount
  Punitive damages in a section 1983 action must be assessed individually against each defendant, both as to liability and amount, and cannot be jointly assessed.
• Graves v. Barnes
  700 F.2d 220· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees based on prevailing hourly rates and a contingency multiplier, but modified the award to correct a calculation error regarding travel time.
• Lukas E. Hoska, III v. United States Dep't OF the Army
  694 F.2d 270· D.C. Cir.· 1982-11-23 ·cited 18×
  The petitioner is entitled to an award of costs and attorney's fees for services rendered during both administrative and judicial appeals related to his dismissal and reinstatement.
• Jorstad v. IDS Realty Tr.
  643 F.2d 1305· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by awarding excessive attorneys' fees and expenses, particularly in its calculation of the base fee and its multipliers for risk and quality.
• State v. LaBELLE Phoenix Corp.
  696 So. 2d 947· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-07-11 ·cited 17×·via Lodestar Analysis
  The Florida Department of Transportation appeals the award of attorney's fees in an eminent domain case, arguing the trial court applied the wrong statutory formula. The court holds that section 73.092(1), which bases fees on a percentage of benefits achieved, applies rather than
• Corder v. Gates
  947 F.2d 374· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-16 ·cited 17×·via Lodestar Amount
  A district court may not reduce an attorney's fee award simply because the plaintiff did not prevail against all named defendants when the claims are related and the plaintiff achieved substantial relief.
• In re W. Real Est. Fund, Inc. v. The First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Tulsa
  922 F.2d 592· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that rejection of an executory contract constitutes a breach, entitling the non-breaching party to contract damages under state law, and that a permanent injunction against a creditor pursuing a non-debtor is improper under the Bankruptcy Code.
• Smith v. Freeman
  921 F.2d 1120· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a reduced hourly rate for attorney driving time and denying an increase in the lodestar for delay or risk of nonpayment, but did err by failing to consider hours spent on a reply brief.
• Williams v. Roberts
  904 F.2d 634· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff's termination for writing editorials and a letter constituted a violation of her First Amendment free speech rights, and that the award of attorney's fees was proper.