Lower Court’s Double Multiplier For Defense Litigation Tactics Sustained on Appeal.
Martin v. Taylor, Case No. H034649 (6th Dist. Feb. 8, 2011) (unpublished) goes to show you that there is no proportionality principle for awarding attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717. In fact, courts will often apply a multiplier if an opponent’s tactics have protracted the litigation.
In this one, plaintiff was awarded damges of about $23,000 in a landlord-tenant dispute. Plaintiff then sought $187,456.50 in fees and costs, plus a two multiplier due to the extra effort defendant’s litigation tactics had required. The lower court agreed, awarding every bit of the $374,913 request for fees and costs.
Plaintiff only challenged the merits judgment that the lease was enforceable. That prompted an affirmance by the Sixth District, which also sustained a fee award showing that proportionality is not a necessary guiding principle in the section 1717 area.