Where Reasonableness of Fees Involved, RT Is a Likely Necessity; Cost Memo Was Timely Filed.
Pladott v. Blankstein, Case No. B250097 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 4, 2014) (unpublished) involved a plaintiff “hit” with attorney’s fees and costs by defense, with plaintiff arguing that the existence of a cross-complaint meant the postjudgment orders were premature, the costs memo was untimely filed, and the fee award was unreasonable in nature.
Plaintiff did not get one iota of relief on appeal.
The finality argument was not competently based on documents in the appellate record and had never been raised in the trial court, so it was deemed waived.
The costs memo was timely filed from a deadline standpoint, because notice of entry was served in a delayed fashion; so, the 15-day period plus 5 days for mail meant that the defense did timely file for costs when measured from the date of entry document.
Then, to reasonableness, an issue reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. In this instance, plaintiff’s failure to include a reporter’s transcript of the fee hearing was fatal, especially on a reasonableness issue. (Maria P. v. Riles, 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296 (1987); Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist., 79 Cal.App.4th 440, 447 (2000).) The inclusion of the tentative decisions and ultimate rulings was not sufficient on the reasonableness issue.
BLOG UNDERVIEW—This decision from the 2/5 DCA is in line with many decisions, mainly unpublished, from the First District holding that the absence of an RT is oftentimes dispositive on a fee reasonableness issue.