Relying Only On Final Settlement Offer, Rather Than Work Performed By Winner, Was Legal Error In Light Of Governing Principles.
TSE Worldwide Press, Inc. v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., Case No. B269747 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 28, 2016) (unpublished) is a reminder that certain challenges by a non-prevailing party to the amount of fees awarded can gain traction if attention is focused upon a trial judge's fixation on a wrong adjudicative factor.
In this one, a prevailing cross-complainant, although only winning $3,096.94 on its cross-claim, was awarded $72,000 in attorney's fees under a contractual fees clause. The losing cross-defendant appealed, with that being a good move in hindsight.
The 2/4 DCA reversed and remanded. The problem here was that the trial judge "over fixated" on a pre-trial offer of $72,000 rather than really looking at the reasonableness of the lodestar request by the prevailing cross-complainant. It simply was unclear whether the lower court applied the correct legal principles given that some of the work looked to be unproductive and that some of the work was not inextricably intertwined with non-compensable work. The reliance on the final settlement offer, rather than the amount of work reasonable performed, required a "re-do" in this matter.