First District, Division 4 Sustains $320,748.25 Fee Award to Plaintiff Conservator.
Plaintiff conservator won a $99,900 compensatory jury verdict against certain defendants, but only one defendant was found liable under the elder abuse statute containing a mandatory fee shifting provision against unsuccessful defendants. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.5(a).) Later, the trial court ordered the same defendant liable for elder abuse to pay attorney’s fees of $320,748.25. Defendant appealed the fee award.
It was affirmed in Conservatorship of the Estate of Ida McQueen, Case No A126825 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 14, 2011) (certified for partial publication on other issues, fee discussion not published).
Entitlement was not an issue, once the appellate court rebuffed merit challenges to the elder abuse verdict. Appealing defendant argued that much of the time spent by the fee requesting attorneys was expended on other defendants and other causes of action.
Allocation or apportionment, however, is a matter for a trial court’s discretion, especially where a common core of facts or legal theories are involved–as it was in the instant case. (Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale, 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 555 (2007); Drouin v. Fleetwood Enterprises, 163 Cal.App.3d 486, 493 (1985).) The lower court did not err in refusing to allocate given that the various claims were “factually intertwined,” making it impracticable to separate the conjoined activities into compensable or noncompensable time units. (Fed-Mart Corp. v. Pell Enterprises, Inc., 111 Cal.App.3d 215, 227 (1980).)