Plaintiff Wanted $93,421.50 in Fees and $7,609.19 in Costs.
Arguing that a lower court erred in fixing the amount of a fee award is a tough proposition given that a deferential abuse of discretion review standard applies. Plaintiff learned that all too well in Nickel v. ARB, Inc., Case No. G048500 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 30, 2014) (unpublished), authored by Justice Moore for a 3-0 panel.
The defense accepted a $100,000 CCP § 998 offer to settle by plaintiff in a civil rights case, leaving the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be determined by the lower court under a stipulated judgment memorializing the acceptance of the 998 offer. Plaintiff sought $93,421.50 in fees and $7,609.19 in costs, while the defense argued a fee award should not exceed $44,956.00. The lower court awarded fees of $30,000 but declined to award any costs.
Plaintiff did not overturn the result on appeal. The lower court is not required to make findings in California state court fee proceedings, even though the record showed the trial judge was familiar with and did evaluate lodestar factors. Beyond the extreme leeway granted to trial judges as far as determining the amount or reasonableness of fees, appellant failed to provide some of the proof submitted in the fee proceeding, so review was properly denied based on an inadequate record alone.
With respect to the costs award, appellant failed to provide the costs memo, reason enough to deny the challenge to the costs denial. However, the stipulated judgment did leave the cost issue to the lower court’s discretion, such that no mandatory award was required under the circumstances.