Lower Court Had Discretion, And Got It Right According To Reviewing Tribunal—Especially Given $12,000 Settlement Amount.
You gotta be reasonable as a fee claimant. This one shows that in graphic, telling detail.
In Camargo v. Triumph Motorcycles (America) Ltd., Case No. H039172 (6th Dist. June 27, 2014) (unpublished), a “lemon law” plaintiff under a mandatory fee-shifting statute obtained a $12,000 compensatory settlement from the defense and agreed to litigate the fees/costs in a separate noticed motion. Unfortunately, the plaintiff did not focus on the fact that requested fees and costs had to be reasonable in nature. Plaintiff requested $18,756.75 in routine costs and $291,521.25 in fees (lodestar plus 1.5 positive multiplier). The lower court said “no way,” nixing some costs requests for expert witness fees, postage fees, law/motion hearing transcript, photocopies, parking/mileage to attend hearings, mock trial, mediation, and private investigator items. Then, the trial judge awarded $61,236.45 in fees, a 70% reduction in claimed amounts.
These reductions held up on appeal.
We can safely say that the appellate court said “really?” First of all, California state courts do not have to “show their math” as California federal district judges have to do, and the reviewing court was not willing to import federal requirements into the state court arena. (Compare Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp., 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 101 (2009) with Padgett v. Loventhal, 706 F.3d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir. 2013) [reviewed in our February 13, 2013 post].) The 70% reduction was not shocking to the appellate court, given the overstaffing on the plaintiff’s side with four attorneys at various junctures and pursuit of summary judgment proceedings when factual disputes were apparent. The reviewing tribunal also found that the taxed costs were properly discounted, with no abuse of discretion attending the lower court’s decision—especially given that the trial judge did allow some of the expert witness fees as “expenses” under the lemon law costs-shifting provision. Affirmed.
Posted with Blogsy