Legal Opinion

Crommie v. California, Public Utilities Commission

District Court, N.D. California

Decided January 5, 1994No. C 89-4433 BAC, C 90-1150 BACPublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

CAULFIELD, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs in these actions prevailed at trial on their age discrimination claims under two alternative theories of liability: the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Based on the jury’s findings, plaintiffs now seek attorneys’ fees and costs under state law as provided in Cal.Gov’t Code § 12965(b) and under the private attorney general theory provided for in Cal.Code Civ.P § 1021.5. Judgment is ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS; plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees is…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. City of Burlington v. DagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1992

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.California Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Flannery v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Flannery v. California Highway PatrolCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. Jadwin v. County of KernDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2011
  5. Weeks v. Baker & McKenzieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API