Both Sides Appealed the Fee Award, But The Trial Court’s Award Stood Firm.
The Ralph Act (Civil Code, § 51.7) provides that all persons within California’s jurisdiction have the right to be free from violence or intimidation because of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status or sexual orientation with respect to business establishments of every kind. Civil Code section 52(b)(3) allows for a discretionary award of attorney’s fees to parties denying rights provided by section 51.7. The next decision focused on this fee-shifting provision.
The facts in Benham v. S&J Security and Investigation, Inc., Case No. B207420 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 8, 2010) (unpublished), are not pretty. Boiled down, a female and her companion apparently were falsely imprisoned by a Walgreen security company over apparently stealing some weight loss formula drinks, although sexual innuendos were allegedly made by some of the security guards against the female. The result was a fairly substantial verdict for the female plaintiff, augmented by a trial court award of fees in the amount of $456,750 under Civil Code section 52(b)(3).
Neither side was pleased with the fee award, filing respective appeals.
Neither side was likely pleased with the appellate decision affirming the lower court’s fee award.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys requested a lodestar fee award of $1,100,738.75, enhanced by a 2.0 multiplier so that the grand tally request was $2,201,477.50. Although finding that the case was protracted and that multiple plaintiff attorneys were warranted, the trial court nevertheless slashed the hourly rates and hours claimed by most counsel down to a lodestar of $304,500, enhanced by a 1.5 multiplier with a resultant $456,750 total fee award.
Because unwarranted and duplicative charges were properly excluded, no abuse of discretion was found in the reductions by the trial court. That took care of plaintiff’s challenge.
So what about the defense challenge? The defense argued that the trial court erred in using the same factors to calculate the lodestar amount and to determine the appropriateness of a multiplier. Result: Not so much! Given that the lower court reduced the lodestar and did not increase it for the remarkable results or the contingency nature of the case, these factors were appropriately used in setting a 1.5 multiplier. Fee award affirmed.