Bivins v. Wrap It Up, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that reconsidering factors used to make the initial lodestar calculation to justify subsequent adjustments to that amount constituted impermissible double counting
• suggesting that the court’s reduction of fees from roughly $48,000 to $25,000 was the result of an “across-the-board” cut in hours
• noting that downward adjustment in lodestar is warranted if the plaintiff was only partially successful in his claims
• noting that there is a strong presumption that the lodestar is the reasonable sum the attorneys deserve
• instructing that it is important to ensure that the court “does not doubly- discount the requested hours”
• noting that there is a strong presumption that the lodestar is the reasonable sum the attorneys deserve

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).