$23,600 Fee Award Out of Requested $223,615.50 Reversed in Civil Rights Case.
In Williams v. Hei Long Beach, LLC, Case No. B224211 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 31, 2011) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed a fee award of $23,600 out of attorneys’ requested $223,615.50 in an Unruh Civil Rights hotel accommodation case resulting in a permanent injunction by which hotel agreed to accommodate disabled patrons with service animals. Although agreeing that the lower court had discretion to apportion time out on other noncompensable claims, the appellate court found that the injunction was an important public win in the case justifying more fees even though plaintiff won rather small damages. Also, it could not fathom why compensation was denied to one attorney who tried the case and was lead counsel. Remanded to reconsider the fees to be awarded to plaintiff’s attorneys.
Prior Federal Court Judgment Given Res Judicata Impact, Sustaining Fees Awarded in Favor of Three Individual Defendants Having Qualified Immunity.
The next case involved the application of res judicata to sustain a $36,501 fee award (out of a requested $45,773 in fees) based on a prior federal judgment finding that three individual defendants were protected under the qualified immunity defense in a civil rights action. Because res judicata barred plaintiff’s effort to relitigate in the later-filed action based on the qualified immunity federal ruling, the lower court correctly concluded that the result was obvious, triggering the meritless/groundless fee-shifting provision of 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) in favor of winning defendants. The decision so applying res judicata principles is California County Superintendents Educational Services Assn. v. Marzion, Case No. A129527 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 31, 2011) (unpublished).
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Justified Not Awarding Fees to Plaintiff in Proposition 65 Opt-In Defendant Case.
This last one, Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Sanders Paving, Inc., Case No. A127125 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 31, 2011) (unpublished), involved a Proposition 65 consent judgment with language allowing potential defendants who were not parties to the initial action to “opt-in” to the judgment by agreeing to its terms and making certain payments–including an “opt-in premium” of reimbursing the plaintiff for documented out-of-pocket costs and fees incurred in commencing suit following the initial opt-in period. The trial court entered a corollary order indicating it would resolve fee/costs disputes if the parties were unable to do so. The lower court did not like the opt-in premium provision, indicating that the fees had to be reasonably incurred and that potential defendants opting-in had to be given notice of the consent decree before fee exposure would be triggered. On this basis, the trial court denied awarding additional fees from three defendants not given the requisite notice. The appellate court affirmed based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, having a good discussion of how it applies in consent decree situations involving Proposition 65.