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

• Dish Network Serv. L.L.C. v. Myers
  87 So. 3d 72· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-04-25 ·cited 6×
  DISH Network appeals a $176,992.64 attorneys' fees award in a consumer debt collection case under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. The appellate court affirmed the actual and statutory damages but reversed the fee award, holding that the trial court improperly inclu
• Ottaviano v. Nautilus Ins. Co.
  717 F. Supp. 2d 1259· M.D. Fla.· 2010-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs, awarding $27,520 in fees and $1,425 in costs.
• Valencia v. Affiliated Grp., Inc.
  674 F. Supp. 2d 1300· S.D. Fla.· 2009-09-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Rule 68 does not preclude recovery of attorney's fees incurred after an offer of judgment because the FDCPA distinguishes fees from costs, unlike statutes where fees are included within costs. The court als
• Nelson v. Wakulla Cnty.
  985 So. 2d 564· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-04-21 ·cited 6×
  A class action settlement in a tax refund dispute was rejected by the trial court as unfair and inadequate. The appellate court granted the petition in part, identifying specific deficiencies in the settlement structure, attorney's fees provisions, and notice to class members, an
• Hamilton v. Ford Motor Co.
  936 So. 2d 1203· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-09-01 ·cited 6×·via Lodestar Amount
  Homeowners appealed a trial court's attorney's fees award in a lemon law case brought under both the Florida Lemon Law Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The court reversed and remanded, finding the trial court improperly relied on a rejected settlement offer and defense exp
• City OF N. Miami Beach v. Reed
  863 So. 2d 351· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-09-24 ·cited 6×
  The City of North Miami Beach appealed an attorney's fee award in an inverse condemnation case where property owners successfully challenged the elimination of vehicular access to their properties. The court affirmed the fee award but reversed the application of a 2.0 contingency
• Gaston v. Dep't OF Revenue & Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n
  742 So. 2d 517· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-10-20 ·cited 6×·via Lodestar Fee
  Gaston sought review of a PERC final order awarding attorney fees after successfully challenging his wrongful termination by the Department of Revenue. The appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that PERC erred in reducing the reasonable hourly rate from $
• State v. Skinners Wholesale Nursery, Inc.
  736 So. 2d 3· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Department of Transportation appeals a trial court's award of $98,000 in appellate attorney's fees to Skinners Wholesale Nursery, arguing the amount is excessive and improperly includes a contingency risk factor enhancement. The appellate court reverses, holding that
• J.E. Stack, Jr. v. Lewis
  641 So. 2d 969· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-09-08 ·cited 6×·via Lodestar Fee
  Stack appeals an award of attorneys' fees enhanced by a 2.0 multiplier, arguing the trial court erred in applying the multiplier to both the lodestar fee and appellate fees. The court affirmed, holding that multipliers are appropriate under Florida law and may be applied to appel
• Sonara v. Star Cas. Ins. Co.
  603 So. 2d 661· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-08-11 ·cited 6×
  This case addresses whether an insured can recover attorney's fees under Florida law for prosecuting a claim for attorney's fees itself in an insurance dispute. The court held that when an insurer contests an insured's attorney's fee claim under an insurance contract, the insured
• Nydam v. Lennerton
  948 F.2d 808· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-04 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and the denial of the defendants' motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding the damages awarded were not excessive and the attorney fee award was not an abuse of discretion.
• Soto v. Adams Elevator Equip. Co.
  941 F.2d 543· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for wage discrimination under the EPA was supported by substantial evidence, and liquidated damages were appropriate. However, the court reversed the JNOV on the retaliation claim, reinstating the jury's award.
• Brown v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  917 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while a contingency fee agreement is relevant to the reasonableness of attorney's fees in Social Security cases, it is not binding on the Secretary or the district court, and fees can only be awarded for work performed before the respective body (agency or cou
• Bailey v. Great Lakes Canning, Inc.
  908 F.2d 38· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement, finding the terms just and equitable for all class members.
• Margaretta C. Beisswenger and Loreen J. Beisswenger v. Omicron Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc.
  552 So. 2d 240· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court's award of attorneys' fees because the trial court failed to provide specific reasons for reducing the lodestar amount as required by Florida law.
• Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc.
  879 F.2d 632· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while enhancement of attorney fees for the risk of loss in this antitrust action was proper, enhancement for work on the fee petition was an abuse of discretion. The contingent fee agreement did not limit the award.
• Bankers Ins. Co. v. Valmore Gonzalez
  545 So. 2d 907· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-04-11 ·cited 6×
  Florida appellate court reversed attorney's fee award because trial court failed to make findings supporting application of a contingency risk multiplier to the lodestar fee in a personal injury protection benefits dispute.
• State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Johnson
  547 So. 2d 940· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-10-04 ·cited 6×
  A court-awarded attorney fee cannot exceed the fee agreement reached between the attorney and client, even when calculating a lodestar-based fee with enhancement for contingency risk.
• Culebras Enters. Corp. v. Rivera-Rios
  846 F.2d 94· 1st Cir.· 1988-05-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that attorneys who performed pretrial legal services while known to be potential witnesses did not violate the advocate-witness rule under the applicable Model Rules of Professional Conduct and are eligible for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Anne B. Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  846 F.2d 434· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that awarding attorneys' fees against an intervening union, which acted in good faith to protect its members' jobs, was inappropriate under the 'prevailing party' standard for fee awards.
• Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket
  842 F.2d 1496· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the "same shift/same department" policy a pretext for discrimination, but affirmed findings of discrimination based on subjective criteria and lack of objective guidelines for other individual claims.
• Fadhl v. City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco
  804 F.2d 1097· 9th Cir.· 1986-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the award of damages and the base attorneys' fee award, retaining jurisdiction over the multiplier pending a Supreme Court decision.
• Durett v. Cohen
  790 F.2d 360· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the reduction of the fee award on the merits but remanded for reconsideration of the fee petition award, the multiplier, and the award against Bucks County defendants.
• In re Boston & Me. Corp. v. Moore
  776 F.2d 2· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-04 ·cited 6×·via Lodestar Analysis
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by unduly reducing the attorney fees awarded to counsel for the debtor railroad, finding the fees sought were reasonable given the complexity, importance, and successful outcomes of the legal services rendered.
• In re Futuronics Corp. v. Arutt
  655 F.2d 463· 2d Cir.· 1981-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the Arutt firm's fee-splitting was reprehensible and required disgorgement of fees, the Israel firm, despite its ethical breach, should not be deprived of all compensation due to its substantial services and the proportionality of the penalty.
• Hicks v. Hicks
  284 So. 3d 576· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-11-20 ·cited 5×
  An award of attorney's fees as a sanction for bad faith conduct requires express findings of bad faith, a direct causal link between the bad faith conduct and the fees incurred, and evidence supporting the reasonable hours and hourly rate. Incarceration for civil contempt require
• Ass'n for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Integra Resort Mgmt., Inc.
  385 F. Supp. 2d 1272· M.D. Fla.· 2005-08-02 ·cited 5×
  The court vacated its prior order and substituted a new decision, vacating the prior judgment and substituting this memorandum of decision in its place, to articulate the basis for the award of attorneys' fees, expenses, expert fees, and costs.
• Frank J. Pepper, Inc. v. Vining
  783 So. 2d 1160· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-04-18 ·cited 5×
  An attorney (Vining) sued his former client (Pepper) for unpaid legal fees rendered without a written contract. The trial court awarded $17,000 based on quantum meruit/unjust enrichment, but the appellate court reversed the amount to $11,000, finding the trial court properly stru
• Walco Invs., Inc. v. Thenen
  975 F. Supp. 1468· S.D. Fla.· 1997-07-18 ·cited 5×
  The court awarded an additional $13,653,077 in attorneys' fees, totaling 15% of the common fund, finding this to be a reasonable fee for the work performed in the class action.
• Meli Inv. Corp. v. O.R.
  621 So. 2d 676· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-07-06 ·cited 5×·via Lodestar Amount
  The appellate court reviewed the trial court's application of a risk multiplier to an award of attorneys fees for tenants who successfully counterclaimed for wrongful eviction, harassment, and AIDS discrimination against their landlord.
• United States Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lapour
  617 So. 2d 347· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-04-13 ·cited 5×·via Lodestar Amount
  In this attorney's fees appeal arising from a PIP insurance dispute, the court reversed the trial court's application of a 2.0 multiplier to the lodestar amount, holding that a multiplier is not automatic when counsel is hired on a contingent fee basis and is inappropriate where
• Larry L. and Patricia A. Longden v. Sunderman
  979 F.2d 1095· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees and expenses, nor in denying Massie's Rule 60(b) motion.
• Lattimore v. Oman Constr.
  795 F.2d 930· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court improperly enhanced attorney fees based on the plaintiff obtaining all legally available relief and the contingency of payment, as these factors alone do not constitute 'exceptional success' required for an enhancement.
• Manzano Fuentes v. Saad
  2023 WL 3794568· M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the plaintiff's renewed motion for attorney's fees and costs without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient legal analysis and evidentiary support.
• Impex Caribe Corp. v. Carl Levin, P.A.
  338 So. 3d 13· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees based on the lodestar amount but reversed the application of a contingency fee multiplier. The court found insufficient evidence that the relevant market required a multiplier to obtain competent counsel.
• Garrido v. Garrido
  247 So. 3d 22· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-06-06 ·cited 4×
  In domestic relations cases, an attorney's fees award must be supported by express findings regarding the number of hours reasonably expended and a reasonable hourly rate using the lodestar method, and the trial court's order must allow appellate review of these determinations.
• Laquarius Gray v. Bostic
  625 F.3d 692· 11th Cir.· 2010-10-26 ·cited 4×·via Lodestar Analysis
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiff who prevailed on a significant legal issue of first impression, even though only nominal damages were awarded. The plaintiff's success served an important public purpose by deterring futu
• Danow v. Law Off. of David E. Borback, P.A.
  634 F. Supp. 2d 1337· S.D. Fla.· 2009-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party under the FDCPA, awarding $62,895.00 in fees and $715.60 in costs, and denied the defendant's motion for fees.
• Kenny A. v. Sonny Perdue
  547 F.3d 1319· 11th Cir.· 2008-11-05 ·cited 4×
  The Eleventh Circuit denied rehearing en banc, affirming the district court's discretion to enhance attorney's fees in exceptional cases based on superior performance and results, provided specific evidence supports the enhancement. The court rejected arguments that existing prec
• Azam-Qureshi v. the Colony Hotel, Inc.
  540 F. Supp. 2d 1293· S.D. Fla.· 2008-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under the FLSA, the requested amount was excessive, and only a fraction of the hours and a reduced hourly rate were reasonable.
• Patricia Gail van Diepen, P.A. v. Brown
  976 So. 2d 38· Fla. 5th DCA· 2008-01-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's attorney's fee award must be reversed because the order lacked sufficient detail for meaningful appellate review, and the court erred in not requiring production of the parties' fee agreements.
• Baratta v. Valley OAK Homeowners' Ass'n AT THE Vineyards, Inc.
  928 So. 2d 495· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-05-10 ·cited 4×
  Baratta appeals an attorney's fees award against him following dismissal of his case against Valley Oak Homeowners' Association for failure to prosecute. The court reverses because the trial court failed to comply with the Rowe factors requirement for awarding attorney's fees, sp
• IN & FOR Kent Cnty. James M. Crowhorn
  2002 Del. Super. LEXIS 178· Del. Super. Ct.· 2003-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court granted final approval of the class action settlement and awarded attorneys' fees. The court found that the settlement class met the requirements of Rule 23, that the settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that the requested attorneys' fees of $1,650,000 wer
• Superior Ins. Co. v. Cordle
  851 So. 2d 207· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-06-26 ·cited 4×·via Lodestar Amount
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's award of attorney fees, finding that a "contingent risk" multiplier was improperly applied. The court clarified that a client's indigence does not make a fee arrangement contingent for the purpose of applying such multipliers.
• Amisub (American Hospital) Inc. v. Hernandez
  817 So. 2d 870· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-04-24 ·cited 4×·via Lodestar Calculation
  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
• Jerelds v. City of Orlando
  194 F. Supp. 2d 1305· M.D. Fla.· 2002-03-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that prevailing party attorney's fees are recoverable against plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) because their claims were frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation, but sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 were not warranted against cou
• Alvarez, Armas & Borron, P.A. v. Heitman
  770 So. 2d 208· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-10-18 ·cited 4×
  This case concerns whether a law firm that previously represented a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard when attorney's fees are sought against them on appeal.
• 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.
• Rolle v. Metro. Dade Cnty. & Metro. Dade Cnty. Self-Insurance Fund
  642 So. 2d 100· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-09-07 ·cited 4×
  The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed an attorney's fee award in a workers' compensation case, holding that the judge of compensation claims failed to adequately apply the Lee Engineering factors when awarding $210,000 in attorney's fees. The court clarified that wh
• Cann v. Carpenters' Pension Tr. Fund FOR N. Cal.
  989 F.2d 313· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-25 ·cited 4×·via Lodestar Amount
  The court held that ERISA's attorneys' fees provision does not allow for fees incurred during administrative proceedings prior to filing suit, nor does it allow for enhancement of fees to reflect a contingency risk.