Serrano III factors in California

2021In Ketchum, our Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Serrano III factors, including contingent risk, are the relevant factors to be considered in adjusting a lodestar to arrive at an overall fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. ( Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 1130–1139.) Subsequent cases deciding whether to award multipliers in FEHA cases have followed Ketchum and have held that contingent risk remains a factor to be considered in determining whether to apply a multiplier. ( Greene, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 428–429 [FEHA case; stating that “in Ketchum . . . the Supreme

2021In Ketchum, our Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Serrano III factors, including contingent risk, are the relevant factors to be considered in adjusting a lodestar to arrive at an overall fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. ( Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 1130–1139.) Subsequent cases deciding whether to award multipliers in FEHA cases have followed Ketchum and have held that contingent risk remains a factor to be considered in determining whether to apply a multiplier. ( Greene, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 428–429 [FEHA case; stating that “in Ketchum . . . the Supreme

2006Thus, California courts often use ‘the amount at stake, and the result obtained by counsel’ as relevant factors justifying enhancement of a lodestar fee through use of a multiplier.” (Lealao, at p. 45, citing City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 78, 83 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 606 ].) The court further stated that an “adjustment reflecting the amount of the class recovery is not significantly different from an adjustment reflecting a percentage of that amount; and California courts have evaluated a lodestar as a percentage of the benefit.” (Lealao, at p. 46.) Lealao involved a repre

2006Thus, California courts often use ‘the amount at stake, and the result obtained by counsel’ as relevant factors justifying enhancement of a lodestar fee through use of a multiplier.” (Lealao, at p. 45, citing City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 78, 83 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 606 ].) The court further stated that an “adjustment reflecting the amount of the class recovery is not significantly different from an adjustment reflecting a percentage of that amount; and California courts have evaluated a lodestar as a percentage of the benefit.” (Lealao, at p. 46.) Lealao involved a repre

2006(Lealao, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 39.) The Court of Appeal disagreed, pointing out that the Serrano III factors used to adjust the lodestar are not strictly limited to those enumerated by the court, and thus may include the amount or value of the class recovery: “[Ijntermediate appellate courts in this state have, in effect, adopted the common federal practice of ‘cross-checking’ the lodestar against the value of the class recovery (which is not duplicative because the amount or value of the recovery is not reflected in the basic lodestar), because the award is still ‘anchored’ in the time

2006(Lealao, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 39.) The Court of Appeal disagreed, pointing out that the Serrano III factors used to adjust the lodestar are not strictly limited to those enumerated by the court, and thus may include the amount or value of the class recovery: “[Ijntermediate appellate courts in this state have, in effect, adopted the common federal practice of ‘cross-checking’ the lodestar against the value of the class recovery (which is not duplicative because the amount or value of the recovery is not reflected in the basic lodestar), because the award is still ‘anchored’ in the time

1998(Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914, 952-958 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 839 ]; Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 865, 880-881 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 831 ].) In State of California v. Meyer (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1061 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 884 ], the court declined to hold as a matter of law that trial courts must use a lodestar multiplier to calculate a fee award in an eminent domain proceeding.

1998(Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914, 952-958 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 839 ]; Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 865, 880-881 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 831 ].) In State of California v. Meyer (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1061 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 884 ], the court declined to hold as a matter of law that trial courts must use a lodestar multiplier to calculate a fee award in an eminent domain proceeding.

1998(Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914, 952-958 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 839 ]; Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 865, 880-881 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 831 ].) In State of California v. Meyer (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1061 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 884 ], the court declined to hold as a matter of law that trial courts must use a lodestar multiplier to calculate a fee award in an eminent domain proceeding.

1998(Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914, 952-958 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 839 ]; Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 865, 880-881 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 831 ].) In State of California v. Meyer (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1061 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 884 ], the court declined to hold as a matter of law that trial courts must use a lodestar multiplier to calculate a fee award in an eminent domain proceeding.

1989For example, “The [lodestone] figure may be enhanced or diminished after the court considers matters such as those enumerated in Serrano III. . . .” (Italics added.) (Serrano v. Unruh, supra, 32 Cal.3d 621, 626, fn. 6 .) Or, “In Serrano III, this court listed a number of relevant factors the trial court may consider in adjusting the lodestar . . . .” (Italics added.) (Maria P. v. Riles, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1294, fn. 8 .) *974 CRTM maintains that the trial court erred under California law by looking to the relative lack of success of its suit as a factor justifying reduction of the lodestar.

1989For example, “The [lodestone] figure may be enhanced or diminished after the court considers matters such as those enumerated in Serrano III. . . .” (Italics added.) (Serrano v. Unruh, supra, 32 Cal.3d 621, 626, fn. 6 .) Or, “In Serrano III, this court listed a number of relevant factors the trial court may consider in adjusting the lodestar . . . .” (Italics added.) (Maria P. v. Riles, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1294, fn. 8 .) *974 CRTM maintains that the trial court erred under California law by looking to the relative lack of success of its suit as a factor justifying reduction of the lodestar.

1989For example, “The [lodestone] figure may be enhanced or diminished after the court considers matters such as those enumerated in Serrano III. . . .” (Italics added.) (Serrano v. Unruh, supra, 32 Cal.3d 621, 626, fn. 6 .) Or, “In Serrano III, this court listed a number of relevant factors the trial court may consider in adjusting the lodestar . . . .” (Italics added.) (Maria P. v. Riles, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1294, fn. 8 .) *974 CRTM maintains that the trial court erred under California law by looking to the relative lack of success of its suit as a factor justifying reduction of the lodestar.

1989For example, “The [lodestone] figure may be enhanced or diminished after the court considers matters such as those enumerated in Serrano III. . . .” (Italics added.) (Serrano v. Unruh, supra, 32 Cal.3d 621, 626, fn. 6 .) Or, “In Serrano III, this court listed a number of relevant factors the trial court may consider in adjusting the lodestar . . . .” (Italics added.) (Maria P. v. Riles, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1294, fn. 8 .) *974 CRTM maintains that the trial court erred under California law by looking to the relative lack of success of its suit as a factor justifying reduction of the lodestar.