Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jacobs v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

April 22, 2019

LORI JACOBS, Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE: TAX CONSEQUENCES

          ROBERT J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the court on the above-referenced motion (Dkt. 254). The court is familiar with the records and files herein and all documents filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, including supplemental declarations filed by plaintiff (Dkts. 270, 271). For the reasons stated below, the motion should be granted in part and denied in part.

         BACKGROUND

         This is a disability discrimination case brought under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. After a seven-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for plaintiff on her ADA claims, but ruled against her on the parallel WLAD claims, and awarded her $1, 094, 260.00 in damages ($221, 566.00 for past wages, $223, 054.00 for future wages, and $650, 000.00 for emotional distress). Judgment was entered after capping the emotional distress damages at $300, 000.00, pursuant to the ADA statute. A total judgment was entered of $744, 620.00. Plaintiff now requests fees and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205. Taxable costs in the sum of $11, 457.73 have been taxed by the Clerk's Office. The Clerk deducted $900.00 for daily trial transcripts from the plaintiff's cost bill. See Docket 273. It is clear that plaintiff is entitled to fees and expenses of litigation. Defendant objects to some of the amounts claimed by plaintiff in its opposition to plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 266).

         APPLICABLE LAW

         To determine what attorney's fees are reasonable, the court must arrive at a “lodestar amount, ” that is, multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. Jordan v Multnomah County, 799 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Hensley v Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). From the presumptively reasonable lodestar amount, the court may make upward or downward adjudgments on the basis of the Kerr factors (Kerr v Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, -70 (9th Cir. 1975)), provided that those adjustments have not been subsumed in the lodestar calculation. Camacho v Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 982 (9th Cir. 2008). Under Kerr, the court considers the following factors:

1. The time and labor required.
2. The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved.
3. The skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.
4. The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case.
5. The customary fee.
6. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
7. The time limitations imposed by the client or the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.