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

• King v. Palmer
  906 F.2d 762· D.C. Cir.· 1990-06-26 ·cited 9×
  The court granted rehearing en banc to reconsider its holding on contingency enhancements, vacating the prior judgment and ordering specific briefing on the necessity and level of such enhancements under Title VII.
• Straw v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  866 F.2d 1167· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-01 ·cited 9×
  The court held that district courts must calculate attorney fees based on a lodestar method considering reasonable hours and prevailing market rates, rather than simply approving contingency percentages or fixed hourly rates without justification. Awards in Straw and Garcia were
• Foster v. Bd. OF Sch. Comm'rs OF Mobile Cnty.
  810 F.2d 1021· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-19 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing attorney's fees to reflect the limited success of plaintiffs in Stage II of the bifurcated class action, consistent with Supreme Court precedent on the 'results obtained' factor.
• Louis v. Nelson
  646 F. Supp. 1300· S.D. Fla.· 1986-10-01 ·cited 9×
  The court determined the amount of attorney's fees, costs, and expenses to be awarded to plaintiffs' counsel under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
• West v. Chrisman
  2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132342· M.D. Fla.· 2014-09-19 ·cited 8×·via Lodestar Fee Calculation
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order finding the debt non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(2)(A) and affirmed the calculation of the non-dischargeable debt amount.
• Tullos v. Tullos
  37 So. 3d 355· Fla. 2d DCA· 2010-05-21 ·cited 8×·via Lodestar Amount
  The trial court erred in awarding less than the stipulated attorney's fees without making specific findings to support the reduction.
• Powell v. Carey Int'l, Inc.
  547 F. Supp. 2d 1281· S.D. Fla.· 2008-03-12 ·cited 8×
  The court awarded plaintiffs' counsel $88,623.15 in attorneys' fees, significantly reducing the requested amount due to counsel's conduct and excessive billing.
• Wanda and Eric Teat v. City OF Apalachicola
  880 So. 2d 819· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-08-13 ·cited 8×
  The Teats appealed a trial court's order awarding attorney's fees, arguing the court failed to specify the hourly rate, number of hours, and adjustment factors used in calculating the award. The appellate court held that while sufficient evidence supported the fee award, the tria
• Schafler v. Fairway Park Condo. Ass'n
  324 F. Supp. 2d 1302· S.D. Fla.· 2004-05-21 ·cited 8×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the defendant's motion for attorney's fees, finding that insurance coverage does not preclude an award and that federal law governs the calculation of fees.
• United States v. Adkinson
  256 F. Supp. 2d 1297· N.D. Fla.· 2003-02-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statutory fee caps under the Equal Access to Justice Act apply to Hyde Amendment claims, and the original $75/hour cap, adjusted for cost of living, is the applicable rate.
• Wales v. Jack M. Berry, Inc.
  192 F. Supp. 2d 1313· M.D. Fla.· 2001-12-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that plaintiffs are entitled to $352,225.40 in attorneys' fees and $131,653.59 in expenses, with hourly rates adjusted to local market rates and certain hours excluded for work on non-fee-shifting claims or insufficient description.
• Taylor v. Taylor
  746 So. 2d 577· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-12-21 ·cited 8×·via Lodestar Amount
  A Florida appellate court reversed an award of $21,292 in attorney's fees against the mother in a child custody modification proceeding, holding that the trial court misapplied Rosen v. Rosen and that the facts did not support sanctions for frivolous or harassing litigation.
• Nutrivida, Inc. v. Inmuno Vital, Inc.
  46 F. Supp. 2d 1310· S.D. Fla.· 1998-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Nutrivida's knowing and willful infringement of Inmuno Vital's intellectual property rights, including the unauthorized use of celebrity endorsements and trademarks, warranted disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees
• Forest Henry Shipes v. Trinity Indus.
  987 F.2d 311· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-05 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's class certification and back pay award, but remanded the attorneys' fees enhancement for further consideration of the 'results obtained' factor and reversed the contingency enhancement.
• Gates v. Deukmejian
  977 F.2d 1300· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-06 ·cited 8×·via Lodestar Calculation
  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×·via Lodestar Calculation
  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.
• Leffler v. Meer
  936 F.2d 981· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the plaintiffs' attorney's fees and denying Rule 11 sanctions, but vacated and remanded the award of attorney's fees to the Commissioners.
• Eddleman v. Switchcraft, Inc.
  927 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a district court must calculate a lodestar figure for attorney's fees and cannot use a contingency fee agreement as the determinative factor for the award.
• Deniece Scales v. J.C. Bradford & Co.
  925 F.2d 901· 6th Cir.· 1991-02-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in limiting discovery and in failing to find a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination, but did not err in denying prejudgment interest or in its initial determination of attorney hourly rates.
• People WHO Care v. Rockford Bd. OF Educ. Dist. NO. 205
  921 F.2d 132· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that neither an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) nor an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 was timely or proper for the interim attorney fee award.
• Mirlisena v. Chemlawn Corp. & Scott Wetzel Servs.
  567 So. 2d 986· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-10-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the deputy commissioner erred in determining appellate attorneys' fees by failing to consider the contingent nature of the fee and refusing to review the appellate briefs.
• State v. Dunne
  915 F.2d 542· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in awarding attorney's fees without considering other pending fee applications and in its calculation of costs awarded to counsel.
• City OF Miami v. Knight
  554 So. 2d 549· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-11-28 ·cited 8×
  The City of Miami appealed a workers' compensation order awarding attorney's fees and costs to claimant Knight. The court affirmed, holding that the judge of compensation claims had jurisdiction to award the fee even though it was not reserved in the merits order, and that the fe
• Faust v. Frederic L. Faust
  553 So. 2d 1275· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-11-28 ·cited 8×
  In this dissolution of marriage case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's limitation of appellate attorney fees to the amount the wife contractually agreed to pay ($1,500), holding that the reasonable fee should be determined using the lodestar method
• Atlantis Bldg. B Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Skawski
  544 So. 2d 1069· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-06-07 ·cited 8×·via Lodestar Calculation
  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.
• In re Est. OF Harvey S. Warwick
  543 So. 2d 449· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-05-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in determining a reasonable attorney's fee for probate administration, considering statutory criteria and estate value.
• Spell v. McDANIEL
  852 F.2d 762· 4th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 8×·via Lodestar Calculation
  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
• SAN Juan Prods., Inc. v. SAN Juan Pools OF Kan., Inc.
  849 F.2d 468· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trademark registration was not fraudulently procured and thus remained valid, but affirmed the lower court's findings regarding the license agreement and the award of attorney fees based on bad faith litigation.
• Blanchard v. Bergeron
  831 F.2d 563· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 8×·via Lodestar Calculation
  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.
• In re Burlington N., Inc.
  832 F.2d 430· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the principles for awarding attorneys' fees under Hensley v. Eckerhart apply to fees sought for litigating prior fee awards. The district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the fee award based on limited success.
• Young v. Pierce
  822 F.2d 1376· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court should reconsider its award of attorney's fees, specifically the contingency enhancement, in light of new Supreme Court precedent and the parties' settlement agreement. The court affirmed the unchallenged portions of the award and remanded f
• Johnson v. NEW York City Transit Auth.
  823 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the district court had discretion to award attorney's fees against the plaintiff, the amount awarded required further consideration due to uncertainty about whether the judge properly exercised discretion regarding the sanction amount.
• Heath v. Chief A.J. Brown
  807 F.2d 1229· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred by not determining whether the plaintiffs prevailed on their federal claims, which is a prerequisite for awarding attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• In re Lawler v. Teofan
  807 F.2d 1207· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by applying the contingency factor to the entire period of representation, when a substantial portion of the work was non-contingent, and reduced the fee award accordingly.
• In re AOV Indus., Inc.
  797 F.2d 1004· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the factual findings supporting the fee award were clearly erroneous due to evidence of a conflict of interest, vacating the award and remanding for reconsideration.
• In re Boston & Me. Corp. v. Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green, P.A.
  778 F.2d 890· 1st Cir.· 1985-10-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by applying the lodestar method to a hybrid fee arrangement that was agreed upon by the parties and reasonable under the circumstances, and that the ICC's approval of the fee should have been given due weight.
• Greenhaw v. Lubbock Cnty. Bev. Ass'n
  721 F.2d 1019· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-27 ·cited 8×·via Lodestar Amount
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class or bifurcating the trial, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's findings on liability, injury, and damages.
• Shadis v. Beal
  703 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1983-03-31 ·cited 8×
  A law firm cannot recover attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorneys’ Fees Awards Act for the time spent preparing its own fee petition, even when representing another attorney in a fee application.
• Delmonico v. Crespo
  127 So. 3d 576· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-12-05 ·cited 7×·via Lodestar Fee Calculation
  Delmonico appeals an order awarding attorney's fees and costs to Donovan Marine, Inc. after DMI prevailed in a defamation case. The court reverses on two grounds: the trial court failed to make specific findings regarding the number of hours reasonably expended in the attorney's
• Durden v. Citicorp Tr. Bank, FSB
  763 F. Supp. 2d 1299· M.D. Fla.· 2011-01-20 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendant is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees for defending the FSIPA claim and, to the extent intertwined, the other fraud claims, but reduced the requested amount due to over-inclusive billing and interrelation issues.
• Eckhardt v. 424 Hintze Mgmt., LLC
  969 So. 2d 1219· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-12-17 ·cited 7×
  Tenants appealed an attorney fee award granted to their landlord in a lease dispute case, arguing the trial court failed to reduce the lodestar figure based on limited recovery and improperly applied a contingency multiplier. The appellate court agreed and reversed, holding that
• Lee v. Am. Eagle Airlines, Inc.
  93 F. Supp. 2d 1322· S.D. Fla.· 2000-03-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that attorney misconduct can justify a reduction or denial of attorney's fees, even for a prevailing party, and reduced the requested fees significantly.
• Huntington Branch v. Town OF Huntington
  961 F.2d 1048· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court's fee enhancement award was vacated because it lacked specific findings supported by evidence regarding historical rates, efforts to secure counsel, and the impact of the NAACP's involvement and third-party payments.
• Perotti v. Seiter
  935 F.2d 761· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while attorney fees are due, the multiplier award must be reconsidered due to improper justifications and a conceded error in the base calculation.
• Zahid Iqbal v. Golf Course Superintendents Ass'n OF Am.
  900 F.2d 227· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the district court's attorneys' fee award but remanded for calculation of fees and costs incurred on appeal, holding that a prevailing party is entitled to such fees.
• Figa v. R.V.M.P. Corp.
  681 F. Supp. 806· S.D. Fla.· 1988-03-08 ·cited 7×
  The court held that an unwritten contingency fee agreement is unconscionable and void, entitling the attorney to fees based on quantum meruit, calculated using the lodestar method.
• Margulies v. Margulies
  506 So. 2d 1093· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-05-05 ·cited 7×
  In a matrimonial fee dispute, the trial court awarded attorney's fees to the unsuccessful wife's counsel under Florida Statutes § 61.16, applying the lodestar method but reducing the award due to both unreasonable client demands and the unsuccessful outcome of the litigation. The
• Alexander v. Nat'l Farmers Org.
  696 F.2d 1210· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-13 ·cited 7×
  The court awarded attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses on appeal, reducing the requested amounts based on reasonableness of hours, rates, and specific recoverable expenses.
• 898 Fifth Ave. S. Holdings, LLC v. Pear
  2023 WL 2347887· M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The Court awarded $3,275 in attorneys' fees to Plaintiff, finding the requested hourly rate of $250 and 13.1 hours to be reasonable for defending against the removal of the case.
• Reguena v. Doug Connor, Inc.
  2017 WL 10241541· M.D. Fla.· 2022-12-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a reasonable hourly rate for attorneys with twelve years of experience in FLSA cases in the Middle District of Florida is $400.00, and that a one-third reduction in requested attorney's fees was warranted due to duplicative billing and limited motion practice.