This unpublished case analyzes when it is proper to use a "multiplier" when calculating attorneys fees in FEHA cases. The trial court had reduced the total amount of attorneys fees awarded but had retained the "multiplier" to the "lodestar" method of calculating fees.
The "lodestar" method of calculating fees involves a determination of the appropriate number of hours attorneys have worked on a particular matter, multiplied by an appropriately-determined hourly rate.
The question in this case was whether it was proper - once the number of hours and the hourly rate to use had been decided - to multiply the final figure by an additional factor, thus increasing the ultimate amount of fees, due to the complexity and/or other considerations involved in litigating this particular case.
Vons, the defendant, had appealed the attorneys fees awarded (even though they had been reduced), arguing that it was error for the trial court to use a multiplier when calculating the fees. Basically, Vons argued that since the trial court had reduced substantially the punitive damages awarded by the jury, this pretty much "vindicated" the defendant from "public" liability and, thus, removed any reason for using a multiplier.
The appellate court disagreed. It ruled it was proper to include the additional multiplier in FEHA cases and that the trial court had not abused its discretion in so ruling.
"The use of a multiplier is permitted in FEHA cases even though the action 'was brought not to benefit the public, but as a means of vindicating [the plaintiff's] own personal rights and economic interest.' (Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128...
"In FEHA cases, the trial court has the discretion to apply a multiplier or fee enhancement to the lodestar figure to take into account . . . the novelty and difficulty of the issues presented . . . . [Citations.]"
The case is Stevens v. Vons Companies.
To read the full opinion,
→
CLICK HERE.
